Researchers can’t tell you if coffee, salt, or alcohol are good or bad for you, but a climate scientist can tell you the exact date on which the world is going to end, despite not even having the ability to do comparative experiments or even much useful observational analysis.

A climate scientist can tell you the exact temperature on a date in 1066 AD and draw a hockey stick showing the apocalypse occurring at 12:01 A.M. on February 2nd, 2032, but a scientist studying Vitamin C intake can’t tell you whether it can really make a cold go away a day quicker.

Clearly the medical researchers need to take lessons from the climate guys. Those guys rock.

The Washington Post has yet another in the never ending series of “Apocalypse Soon” stories, triggered of course by yet another private jet-fest being held in Egypt this year. World leaders are meeting in another nice locale to eat well, drink well, and pretend to care about the future of mankind. So of course we normies need to be scared into giving up our freedoms even more than we have.

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt — Nations will likely burn through their remaining carbon budget in less than a decade if they do not significantly reduce greenhouse gas pollution, a new study shows, causing the world to blow past a critical warming threshold and triggering catastrophic climate impacts.

A new study, you say? I guess we have to pay attention to that! Was it done by the CDC so that we can get some vaccine propaganda along with our carbon propaganda? May as well throw in all the issues.

After all, perhaps we can convince those maskholes wearing their N95s alone in their Mercedes SUVs to walk instead of drive. A twofer!

But new gas projects — launched in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting global energy crunch — would consume 10 percent of that remaining carbon budget, making it all but impossible for nations to meet the Paris agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, according to another report released Wednesday.

The Global Carbon Budget, an annual assessment of how much the world can afford to emit to stay within its warming targets, found that greenhouse gas pollution will hit a record high this year, with much of the growth coming from a 1 percent increase in carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Emissions in both the United States and India have increased compared to last year, while China and the European Union will probably report small declines, according to the report.

A lot of Europeans will be freezing in the dark this winter, but if we extract more natural gas the world will end in fire.

Ooh. Fire and Ice! As predicted. I just never expected it would be the Global Elite™ warning us about the impending apocalypse arriving in fire and ice. Very well played, Elites™!

Yet even as scientists warn of the world’s dangerous trajectory, leaders here at the U.N. Climate Change Conference, known as COP27, have advocated for natural gas as a “transition fuel” that would ease the world’s switch from fossil energy to renewables. At least four new gas projects have been reported or announced in the past 10 days, with several African countries pledging to expand export capacity and supply more fuel to Europe. Representatives from both Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, the host of next year’s climate conference, have made clear they view COP27 as an opportunity to promote gas.

This rhetoric has alarmed scientists and activists who say expanding natural gas production could harm vulnerable communities and push the planet toward a hotter, hellish future.

“Gas is not a low carbon energy source,” said Julia Pongratz, a climate scientist at the University of Munich and an author of the Global Carbon Budget report released Friday.

A hotter, hellish future? You mean like how Ron DeSantis turned Florida into a Crimson Hellscape™ on Tuesday?

Hellscapes are big in the media these days. You do have to admit that the image is evocative, and reporters these days prefer evoking to informing.

The climate change debate is indeed a sort of hellscape, and a microcosm of how awful science communication has become. Every study is hyped, the researchers are rewarded for arriving at and promoting shocking conclusions. A mouse surviving cancer is proof that we have finally whipped the disease for good; a 60 day period of COVID infection reduction proves a vaccine is safe and effective forever, coming with no side-effects; and a computer model predicting the death of all species is enough to shatter the world economy and condemn billions to poverty.

What could go wrong if you listen to the scientists, after all?

Despite my skepticism of both the science being done and the scientists doing it, I think it would be nuts not to investigate what variables impact climate outcomes and to what extent human activities are changing things. I am not in the “human beings have no impact” on climate camp because I know that everything has an impact on everything. I just don’t have a clear idea of what exactly the impacts are and how much I should care.

I need solid data, not “scientists” gluing themselves to the floor.

Beavers can change the course of a river. Dams change landscapes. Forests change rainfall patterns. Planting a single tree can change what will grow in a garden. Things change other things. How? To what extent? Is it something to worry about? After all, historically speaking warmer has been better for human beings and for life on earth than cooler.

Nobody has ever called an ice age a “climatic optimum“–a real scientific term–but they sure described a warming period as one. Why is this different? Perhaps it is, but screaming about carbon only tells me you are insane, not that I should be frightened. Panic does not inspire confidence.

It’s nuts not to study all these phenomena and figure things out. We study everything because we are rational beings who want and need to know stuff. Same here.

Climate science today–at least what we read about–is crap. It is politically driven in what is done, what is reported, and what is funded. The conclusions are baked into the process. And the goal of the process is centralizing power into the hands of a few. It is Marxist drivel, not real science.

I keep looking for real science out there about the issue, and it exists. Just as there is real biological science teasing out relationships between nutrition and health. But in both cases the evidence is pretty thin on the ground so far, and the relationships are usually obscure.

So we need to keep doing and improve the science, and quit using bogus propaganda to centralize the power into the hands of a few.

Just as in nutrition, the underlying questions matter. And just as in nutrition, most of what you read is bunk.