2020 Was To Be Year of Climate Doom

By Steve Haner

So, let’s take another trip down Climate Catastrophe Memory Lane. Maybe 2020 was not such a bad year after all. It was certainly better than it was supposed to be. The pandemic might have been just a footnote to Climate Doom.

In 1987, the official Jeremiah of the movement, NASA’s James Hansen, predicted the world’s average surface temperature would be 3 degrees Celsius hotter in 2020. Remember, only 2 degrees C of added warmth is now the Line of Doom in the Paris Climate Agreement.

Instead, the 40-year increase, by satellite measurements, has been less than one half of a degree C. All other measurements fall short of the warning.

In 1978, we were warned that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would double by 2020, but they have risen from just over 310 parts per million to over 410, up about a third. They did not drop during the COVID recession despite major drops in human energy emissions. Interesting.

The optimists at the Associated Press published a claim in 2009 that China and India would have lower CO2 emissions by 2020 then they had reported in 2005.  China was supposed to go down 40% and India 205. Nope, failed again. China is up 85% and India up 150%. Both are building new coal power plants apace.

These are the first three failed predictions about 2020 climate catastrophe in a list of ten doozies compiled on JunkScience.com. Now there is a video (above). Miami was to be underwater by now (meaning Virginia Beach, too).  The citations are solid, and similar examples abound in the literature.

The people fooled by the alarmists and blind to any effort to fact check include the upper reaches of world government, just about every “journalist,” captains of industry (not just in the technology sectors), and of course millions of our fellow Virginians. Which brings us to Rep. Gerald Connolly of Fairfax, who thankfully skipped service in the General Assembly in his rise to prominence and now is chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee subcommittee on environmental issues.

The committee staff has put out a report right in line with the 40-plus-year history of failed predictions and imaginative mathematical models masquerading as actual science. It earned him adulation on Blue Virginia, of course, but it deserves to be read with a deeply skeptical eye. It is intended to back up the coming Biden Administration decision to re-join the Paris Climate Agreement, but of course that agreement is 1) being widely ignored by many member states and is 2) dismissed as now inadequate by the alarmist movement.  Yet Connolly is eager to get back in.

“From sea level rise in Hampton Roads to increased extreme weather events in Northern Virginia, Virginians see the effects of climate change right now. And the pandemic has demonstrated yet another environmental injustice, with frontline communities exposed to air pollution found to be at great risk to this virus. This report provides even more evidence that this is a crisis that demands bold, progressive action,” said Chairman Connolly.

The House report claims that rejoining the pact and keeping global warming below that 2°barrier will prevent the following results over 50 years, just in Virginia:

  • 160,000 premature deaths,
  • 128,000 emergency room visits and hospitalizations for cardiovascular and respiratory disease, and
  • 5 million lost workdays

Okay, it’s not clear. Is that 160,000 (3,200 per year) fewer deaths than occur now, or is that erasing the predicted increase of deaths blamed on global warming in the dire models? I’m betting the latter. I’m betting it is the same on the hospital trips – no actual reductions are projected, just the prevention of the projected increases.

And the flaw on the “lost workdays” claim is even more obvious – it is tied to predicted high heat emergencies. But if indeed the Virginia climate warms, one obvious result will be less snow and ice, and that is the weather that usually shuts down our economy. Shouldn’t it be net lost days? Nothing on the benefit side of the cost-benefit analysis is ever considered. Excess cold kills far more humans than excess warmth — something never mentioned.

That was another one of the failed predictions in the JunkScience.Com compilation, a 2000 prediction that snow would disappear from the British Isles by 2020, and a 2008 claim snow would disappear from Mount Kilimanjaro. Still snowing.

As the video version of the Junk Science list states, what “they” did to our economy in response to the pandemic is also “their” prescription to protect us from this other exaggerated threat. The Northam Administration in Virginia and the new Biden Administration in Washington see no reason to slow their rush to the cliff just because no actual doomsday prediction has ever come to pass.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

209 responses to “2020 Was To Be Year of Climate Doom”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Ah Jeeze Steve. Why don’t you get out all the Popular Mechanics and go full bore? 😉

    Not good enough that the temps are going up.. nope… they have to go up PRECISELY as predicted or they don’t mean anything?

    This is sorta like saying that the cancer rate is not falling as fast as predicted when fewer people smoked?

    My GAWD – those lying SOB scientists… can’t trust them for nothing.

    Hells Bells – they said 6 feet of social distance and NOW they’re saying OH OH a new variant!

    LIARS liars pants on fire!

    geeze.

  2. Great insightful read: Aliens Cause Global Warming By Michael Crichton,
    Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17, 2003
    https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Gross, et. al. will dismiss it. Crichton was a mere MD, after all….But it is brilliant, of course. The part about “consensus” is the best and Gross would benefit from reading that alone….That’s his favorite fallacy.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        So Steve would you expect the climate scientist to have the same depth of knowledge about medicine that the MD guy has?

  3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Yep, still there in 2000. Of course, the caldera used to be full.

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/3054/snow-and-ice-on-kilimanjaro

  4. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    Just like journalists, climate scientists can say anything. They both cover for each other. One can believe that human activity can affect climate without believing all the crap being fed to the public. And what’s with holding predictors to the accuracy of their predictions?

    Gerry Connolly has always been about the money. He steered a new Metrorail station for his then-employer, SAIC, and high-density for Tysons landowners in exchange for the campaign contributions that got him from the Fairfax County BoS to Congress. I suspect billionaires like Tom Steyer, who made a lot of money from fossil fuels, are funding Connolly now. He’s no fool. Connolly will allow those whose predictions failed to continue to direct public policy so long as the woke billionaires continue to send campaign cash Connolly’s way.

  5. CrazyJD Avatar

    Good job, Steve. We knew that Larry would fail to miss the point.
    As Larry himself would say: geeze, Larry . Can’t you understand that the point is not the difference in actual amount of added warmth, but that you can’t put too much faith in catastrophic predictions from the climate change crowd. And you surely can’t let them drive public policy re: same.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      well if the trend is increase – why would anyone see that as “good”. So it takes longer to get to catastrophe but you still do and that’s “okay”?

      Crazy – it’s you guys that miss the point. You’d critcize the predications for a hurricane track rather than acknowledge that the hurricane still hit and still cause tremendous damage – but the folks who predicted the path were wrong.

      Is that how ya’ll go through life?

      If the Doc says something will kill you in 5 years but it took 7, the Doc is a liar?

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Life expectancy, Larry. Life expectancy.

        “Hey! Didn’t happen on my watch.”

  6. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    BTW, it’s not the snow that counts, it’s the ice. The glacier, to be specific.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Ah Jeeze Steve. Why don’t you get out all the Popular Mechanics and go full bore? 😉

    Not good enough that the temps are going up.. nope… they have to go up PRECISELY as predicted or they don’t mean anything?

    This is sorta like saying that the cancer rate is not falling as fast as predicted when fewer people smoked?

    My GAWD – those lying SOB scientists… can’t trust them for nothing.

    Hells Bells – they said 6 feet of social distance and NOW they’re saying OH OH a new variant!

    LIARS liars pants on fire!

    geeze.

  8. Great insightful read: Aliens Cause Global Warming By Michael Crichton,
    Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17, 2003
    https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      Gross, et. al. will dismiss it. Crichton was a mere MD, after all….But it is brilliant, of course. The part about “consensus” is the best and Gross would benefit from reading that alone….That’s his favorite fallacy.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        So Steve would you expect the climate scientist to have the same depth of knowledge about medicine that the MD guy has?

  9. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Yep, still there in 2000. Of course, the caldera used to be full.

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/3054/snow-and-ice-on-kilimanjaro

  10. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    Just like journalists, climate scientists can say anything. They both cover for each other. One can believe that human activity can affect climate without believing all the crap being fed to the public. And what’s with holding predictors to the accuracy of their predictions?

    Gerry Connolly has always been about the money. He steered a new Metrorail station for his then-employer, SAIC, and high-density for Tysons landowners in exchange for the campaign contributions that got him from the Fairfax County BoS to Congress. I suspect billionaires like Tom Steyer, who made a lot of money from fossil fuels, are funding Connolly now. He’s no fool. Connolly will allow those whose predictions failed to continue to direct public policy so long as the woke billionaires continue to send campaign cash Connolly’s way.

  11. CrazyJD Avatar

    Good job, Steve. We knew that Larry would fail to miss the point.
    As Larry himself would say: geeze, Larry . Can’t you understand that the point is not the difference in actual amount of added warmth, but that you can’t put too much faith in catastrophic predictions from the climate change crowd. And you surely can’t let them drive public policy re: same.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      well if the trend is increase – why would anyone see that as “good”. So it takes longer to get to catastrophe but you still do and that’s “okay”?

      Crazy – it’s you guys that miss the point. You’d critcize the predications for a hurricane track rather than acknowledge that the hurricane still hit and still cause tremendous damage – but the folks who predicted the path were wrong.

      Is that how ya’ll go through life?

      If the Doc says something will kill you in 5 years but it took 7, the Doc is a liar?

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Life expectancy, Larry. Life expectancy.

        “Hey! Didn’t happen on my watch.”

  12. Global temperatures are rising, but at the extreme lower end of the range of climate model forecasts cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Yes, we need to adapt, but we have plenty of time to do so.

    Virginia’s economy will grow greener as new technologies and business models are introduced. Maybe the economy will decarbonize a little bit faster if mandated by state government, but then we will end up with boondoggles like offshore wind, which will add $7.8 billion to the Dominion rate base — no matter how much Peter Galuszka tries to sweep the cost of wind power under the rug in his column today.

    The reduction in C02 emissions made possible by state climate policy will be negligible from a global perspective — even less than negligible if one calculates the gains over that which would occur anyway under a conventional regulatory regime — and the impact on global temperatures will be literally too small to measure.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Do you toss trash out of the car window because what’s a Big Mac wrapper in terms of global litter?

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      The premise is that he predictions are lower than predicted so that means the trend will stay the same so we have “more time”.

      Who looks at this and condemns the predictors but then say their predicted trend line stays the same and does not accelerate?

      Playing with fire? You NOW see smoke but it’s okay, plenty of time ?

      And we say this after earlier we were saying it was a complete hoax , a compsiracy among scientists to fabricate data and concoct a global conspiracy based on lies?

      NOW – there is some truth but they’re wrong on trendline?

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Of course, the prediction made in 1976 was made at emission rates in 1976. Gee, I wonder what could have effected that?

    3. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
      Eric the Half a Troll

      “Yes, we need to adapt, but we have plenty of time to do so”

      Well, if James says so, we are all ok then… phew!!

  13. Global temperatures are rising, but at the extreme lower end of the range of climate model forecasts cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Yes, we need to adapt, but we have plenty of time to do so.

    Virginia’s economy will grow greener as new technologies and business models are introduced. Maybe the economy will decarbonize a little bit faster if mandated by state government, but then we will end up with boondoggles like offshore wind, which will add $7.8 billion to the Dominion rate base — no matter how much Peter Galuszka tries to sweep the cost of wind power under the rug in his column today.

    The reduction in C02 emissions made possible by state climate policy will be negligible from a global perspective — even less than negligible if one calculates the gains over that which would occur anyway under a conventional regulatory regime — and the impact on global temperatures will be literally too small to measure.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Do you toss trash out of the car window because what’s a Big Mac wrapper in terms of global litter?

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      The premise is that he predictions are lower than predicted so that means the trend will stay the same so we have “more time”.

      Who looks at this and condemns the predictors but then say their predicted trend line stays the same and does not accelerate?

      Playing with fire? You NOW see smoke but it’s okay, plenty of time ?

      And we say this after earlier we were saying it was a complete hoax , a compsiracy among scientists to fabricate data and concoct a global conspiracy based on lies?

      NOW – there is some truth but they’re wrong on trendline?

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Of course, the prediction made in 1976 was made at emission rates in 1976. Gee, I wonder what could have effected that?

    3. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
      Eric the Half a Troll

      “Yes, we need to adapt, but we have plenty of time to do so”

      Well, if James says so, we are all ok then… phew!!

  14. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    BTW, it’s not the snow that counts, it’s the ice. The glacier, to be specific.

  15. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    The video message is what it is. Hindsight might be, but foresight certainly wasn’t (forgive me) 2020…too nice an afternoon to stay and play.

  16. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    The video message is what it is. Hindsight might be, but foresight certainly wasn’t (forgive me) 2020…too nice an afternoon to stay and play.

  17. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Isabel Wilkerson, in her book “caste” that I wrote about before, notes that climate change has caused water in Siberian permafrost to melt, releasing long frozen anthrax. That has caused illness. But of course she is a writer and a journalist and should not be taken seriously.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      No question the ice and permafrost are retreating. The debate is over why, whether it really matters. There is clear evidence this is not the first such cycle. It has been much warmer in fairly recent history.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Same frequency? Or, did what has happened in the last 60 years take 100s the last time?

        1. Steve Haner Avatar
          Steve Haner

          Well, it clearly happened rapidly enough to capture some anthrax-ridden animal corpse. Sounds like the freeze was fast. Unless you think the anthrax spores were there from the Creation…

          Retreating ice is providing all kinds of evidence that it wasn’t there a few thousand years back.

  18. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Isabel Wilkerson, in her book “caste” that I wrote about before, notes that climate change has caused water in Siberian permafrost to melt, releasing long frozen anthrax. That has caused illness. But of course she is a writer and a journalist and should not be taken seriously.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      No question the ice and permafrost are retreating. The debate is over why, whether it really matters. There is clear evidence this is not the first such cycle. It has been much warmer in fairly recent history.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Same frequency? Or, did what has happened in the last 60 years take 100s the last time?

        1. Steve Haner Avatar
          Steve Haner

          Well, it clearly happened rapidly enough to capture some anthrax-ridden animal corpse. Sounds like the freeze was fast. Unless you think the anthrax spores were there from the Creation…

          Retreating ice is providing all kinds of evidence that it wasn’t there a few thousand years back.

  19. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release
    The sudden collapse of thawing soils in the Arctic might double the warming from greenhouse gases released from tundra, warn Merritt R. Turetsky and colleagues.

    This much is clear: the Arctic is warming fast, and frozen soils are starting to thaw, often for the first time in thousands of years. But how this happens is as murky as the mud that oozes from permafrost when ice melts.

    As the temperature of the ground rises above freezing, microorganisms break down organic matter in the soil. Greenhouse gases — including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide — are released into the atmosphere, accelerating global warming. Soils in the permafrost region hold twice as much carbon as the atmosphere does — almost 1,600 billion tonnes1.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01313-4#:~:text=The%20sudden%20collapse%20of%20thawing,Turetsky%20and%20colleagues.

    The point here – have the skeptics thought about this?

    When temperatures change – not even the scientists can’t predict all the possible outcomes but if we spend time accusing them of not being precise at predictions – even as other changes are going on – what does that mean?

    Some scientists are saying if the artic permafrost melts, it will relase far more greenhouse gases into the atomosphere than originally predicted.

    The Scientists are given their best guesses based on fixed assumptions – like the perma frost not melting… but if they are wrong about that, then their worst case predictions could be even worse.

    I just don’t see how skeptics can be so sure they know what the outcome will be.

    1. I don’t see how the alarmists think that mandating everyone to drive around in (disposable) electric cars with 2 ton lithium batteries solves the sustainability problem.

      1. “Solves”? Of course not; and the last thing we need is more Cobalt mining to make all those batteries.

        But the clear skies around here this fall (except during the worst of the CA fires) have been striking.

        1. (Responding to ACBAR above)

          My air is Ffx is very clear, so I do not see any big improvement. If there is data showing cleaner air, the next three questions would be:

          (1) What is the source of the issue? (older cars? diesels? coal?)
          (2) Is there a valid justification for making better?
          (3) If yes, why not fix it?

          It’s pretty big gripe from me, not so much re: CO2 where we do have some basis for concern, that we are running off half-cocked without anything other than liberal rhetoric about new cars being bad guys re: pollution. I do not see any to be honest, and if there is some, fix it.

    2. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead V

      The permafrost collapse is also unleashing the flatulence of 1,000 year old frozen wooly mammoths.

      1. John Harvie Avatar
        John Harvie

        Thanks for the comic relief … this thread was getting too serious.

  20. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release
    The sudden collapse of thawing soils in the Arctic might double the warming from greenhouse gases released from tundra, warn Merritt R. Turetsky and colleagues.

    This much is clear: the Arctic is warming fast, and frozen soils are starting to thaw, often for the first time in thousands of years. But how this happens is as murky as the mud that oozes from permafrost when ice melts.

    As the temperature of the ground rises above freezing, microorganisms break down organic matter in the soil. Greenhouse gases — including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide — are released into the atmosphere, accelerating global warming. Soils in the permafrost region hold twice as much carbon as the atmosphere does — almost 1,600 billion tonnes1.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01313-4#:~:text=The%20sudden%20collapse%20of%20thawing,Turetsky%20and%20colleagues.

    The point here – have the skeptics thought about this?

    When temperatures change – not even the scientists can’t predict all the possible outcomes but if we spend time accusing them of not being precise at predictions – even as other changes are going on – what does that mean?

    Some scientists are saying if the artic permafrost melts, it will relase far more greenhouse gases into the atomosphere than originally predicted.

    The Scientists are given their best guesses based on fixed assumptions – like the perma frost not melting… but if they are wrong about that, then their worst case predictions could be even worse.

    I just don’t see how skeptics can be so sure they know what the outcome will be.

    1. I don’t see how the alarmists think that mandating everyone to drive around in (disposable) electric cars with 2 ton lithium batteries solves the sustainability problem.

      1. “Solves”? Of course not; and the last thing we need is more Cobalt mining to make all those batteries.

        But the clear skies around here this fall (except during the worst of the CA fires) have been striking.

        1. (Responding to ACBAR above)

          My air is Ffx is very clear, so I do not see any big improvement. If there is data showing cleaner air, the next three questions would be:

          (1) What is the source of the issue? (older cars? diesels? coal?)
          (2) Is there a valid justification for making better?
          (3) If yes, why not fix it?

          It’s pretty big gripe from me, not so much re: CO2 where we do have some basis for concern, that we are running off half-cocked without anything other than liberal rhetoric about new cars being bad guys re: pollution. I do not see any to be honest, and if there is some, fix it.

    2. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead V

      The permafrost collapse is also unleashing the flatulence of 1,000 year old frozen wooly mammoths.

      1. John Harvie Avatar
        John Harvie

        Thanks for the comic relief … this thread was getting too serious.

  21. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    The premise of this post is wrong. In his testimony and paper, Hansen presented three possible scenarios. Each scenario projected an increase over the 1951-1980 average surface temperature by 2019. Scenario A, the most drastic, projected a rise of 1.56 degrees. Scenario B, which Hansen deemed the most plausible, projected a rise of 1.1 degrees. The third scenario projected a rise of 0.6 degrees.

    According to NASA, the increase in 2019 was 0.98 degrees, very close to Hansen’s scenario B. Much of the difference can be attributed to the adoption of the Montreal Protocol in 1987, which resulted in a significant decline in the emission of chloroflurocarbons. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-01-30/1988-global-warming-forecast-by-james-hansen-proved-mostly-true

    The post seems to think it is significant that CO2 concentrations “did not drop during the COVID recession despite major drops in human energy emissions.” Of course they did not drop. Once CO2 is released into the atmosphere, it stays there a long time. According to NASA , it can remain there for 300-1,000 years. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The premise of the post is that most of the wild predictions were wrong and we should be skeptical when we hear more. I’m not backing off that. But you do make a key point: Often the actual predictions were about a range of outcomes, but the media coverage and alarmists always go with the headline grabbing extreme.

      Now, gee Dick, your side cannot have it both ways. The protocol that changed the chemical used in HVAC systems led to adoption of an alternative, which was just banned by Congress because it may be a WORSE GHG than the one it replaced. The CFC reduction was about the ozone layer. If the replacement chemical made things worse, how did eliminating CFC’s help? Pick one but you cannot have both. It was Larry who pointed to that in the recent omnibus bill….

      I may go look up the original Hansen claims, if I can, but always be careful to separate degrees F and C when on this point. Can make a big difference….

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Call all of science wrong for wild predictions and instead gloming on to bloggers and folks with “degrees” to rely on for better predictions?

        whatsupwiththat?

        In terms of responses to the issue – again – why is more than one interation proof of failure?

        A lot of pollution reduction IS a series of changes that get adjusted over time as we better understand their impact.

        Same thing happens with a lot of science. Medicines – look promising then side effects, go back and re-do, next generation, etc…

        that how science works. Expecting dead-on predictions and first-time solutions from Science or else it justifes “skeptic” ?

        geeze…

        Science has NEVER been perfect the first time around on anything – it’s an accumulating body of knowledge – we “learn” over time.

        What’s the alternative? Latching on to folks who deny science in general and gen up their own beliefs as better?

        Science is not GOD! I know that comes as a shock but it’s true.

      2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Uh yep, the “wild” prediction was wrong. Nevertheless, a dire one was bang-on.

        Snow is weather. Glacier ice is climate.

      3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        You are correct: the major thesis of your post was the most extreme and alarmist predictions of those concerned about climate change have not come to fruition yet. However, that does not mean that significant changes in the climate are underway, with effects being felt now, e.g. melting of glaciers and polar ice and increase in ocean temperatures and that these effects will have a long-range impact on the planet and us as human beings. There are extremists and alarmists in any group.

        Your post led off denigrating the predictions of Hansen, so I focused on that. I apologize for mischaracterizing your overall premise.

        However, environmentalists can have it both ways with relation to CFCs. The chart in the Bloomberg article to which I linked shows that the earth’s average temperature (with relation to the 1950-1980 average) decreased and then gradually increased after the adoption of the Montreal Protocol. The rapid decrease in CFCs was not anticipated by Hansen and his colleagues. CFCs not only destroy the ozone layer, but also function as a greenhouse gas. As a result, the decrease in CFCs resulted in a reduced rate of increase. Scientists estimated that “the CFC ban has prevented the equivalent of 10 billion tonnes of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere in 2010, five times the annual reduction target set by the Kyoto Protocol.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120224110737.htm

        By about 2012, the use of HFCs as a substitute for CFCs had increased significantly and scientists realized that they were an even more potent greenhouse gas. As a result, the Obama administration negotiated an international phase-down of HFCs—the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol in 2016, but the Trump administration refused to send the amendment to the Senate for ratification. The legislation just passed includes a phasing down of HFCs. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/congress-passes-major-climate-legislation-in-year-end-omnibus/

        1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
          Bill O’Keefe

          Take a look at this study by two eminently qualified climate experts–https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Global-Mean-Temperature-Anomaly-Record_12.08.20.pdf. As lawyers say Res ipsa loquitur !

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            Thanks. It’s nice to read a different perspective. I have printed the article out and will read it when I have some time to absorb it.

          2. One common aspect of EVERY prediction and future modeling report — a complete lack of technological invention/innovation and how it could affect the model outcomes.

            Accepting the premise that all that could be invented has been invented is, well, laughable.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            BIll, as someone who has worked with models most of my work career – I think I DO “understand” their use and their limitations.

            They are a tool and they do have to be used correctly and over time, those who use them, improve them , as more knowledge is gained about assumptions in the model.

            “modelling” underlies far more of our lives right now than most people realize.

            It’s science. I trust science.

            When I say “science”, I don’t mean one guy with an opinion or a degree or even a real scientist with one result – I mean hundreds /thousands of scientists over years who work to replicate each others findings and when they don’t, it causes more investigation as to why and they move forward when they do get the answers.

            Every day, much of what you do, what you rely on is based on modelling – from the pandemic to the tires on your car to the meds you take.

          4. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            None of that has anything to do with the accuracy of climate models. You say it’s science but science as I am sure you know has to be able to be validated and a hypothesis falsified. As someone who has so much experience in modelling you surely understand that models can be constructed to produce any result you want.
            As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, we are all entitled to our ow opinions, just not our own facts.

          5. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            Most models project future results based on present conditions. It would be irresponsible to factor in some theoretical or assumed innovation. The point of modeling is to warn society of what is likely to happen if either (1) current behavior is not modified or (2) technological solutions are not developed. Modeling does not assume that all that can be invented has been invented; rather, it provides incentives for innovation. Hence, the rapid development of bigger and more powerful wind turbines, more efficient solar panels, and small, more powerful battery storage.

          6. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Larry, you may have read this Carbon Brief but you don’t understand some of the subtle implications. It makes clear that modelers use parameterization and tuning to get it right which means that they are adjusting for uncertainties like cloud formation, solar irradiance and aerosols. Even the IPCC admits that the understanding of these is not particularly good. Anyone who has experience with models knows that the greater the number of variables and the greater the uncertainty in those variables, the less accurate the outputs. Add to that the effects of chaos in the system and the value for forecasting as opposed to studying is significantly reduced. A few years ago in Congressional testimony John Christy, one of the developers of the satellite systems, showed a comparison of something like 14 models with actual temperatures. They greatly over predicted.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Clilmate models are not unlike many other models in the basic way they work.

            They’re all based on mathematical algorithims and incorporating data they have.

            re: ” As someone who has so much experience in modelling you surely understand that models can be constructed to produce any result you want.”

            This is true and this is why others look to review such models and replicate them.

            Are you saying that all climate scientists look the other way when a model is wrong – that as a group they are engaging in a massive worldwide conspiracy to falsify models?

            One guy can be dishonest or wrong – but hundreds scientists ? There is not ONE model for climate. There are dozens, hundreds, just like there are for hurricanes and weather…

            Are all those models fudged to produce the same results?

            There is nothing inherently dishonest or wrong with Climate Scientists, They go through years of training and then a career of experience – just like cancer researcers do or folks who send missiles up to orbit or hit a target 10,000 miles away.

          8. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            In my opinion, there is a big difference. It is that climate models incorporate a larger number of assumptions because the system is chaotic and there is great uncertainty about many interactions and variables.

  22. I wonder how Climate Change pays out in China, quickly becoming the No. 1 source of Co2?

    My guess is they do terrorize their public with doomsday predictions like our Dems and liberal media does, over the top, every single day and twice on Sundays.

    1. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead V

      I was in Beijing 5 years ago. Smog is progress to them. Paris agreement is a sham.

    2. Correction-meant to say
      My guess is they (China) do NOT terrorize their public …with doomsday claims like we do

  23. I wonder how Climate Change pays out in China, quickly becoming the No. 1 source of Co2?

    My guess is they do terrorize their public with doomsday predictions like our Dems and liberal media does, over the top, every single day and twice on Sundays.

    1. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead V

      I was in Beijing 5 years ago. Smog is progress to them. Paris agreement is a sham.

    2. Correction-meant to say
      My guess is they (China) do NOT terrorize their public …with doomsday claims like we do

  24. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    The premise of this post is wrong. In his testimony and paper, Hansen presented three possible scenarios. Each scenario projected an increase over the 1951-1980 average surface temperature by 2019. Scenario A, the most drastic, projected a rise of 1.56 degrees. Scenario B, which Hansen deemed the most plausible, projected a rise of 1.1 degrees. The third scenario projected a rise of 0.6 degrees.

    According to NASA, the increase in 2019 was 0.98 degrees, very close to Hansen’s scenario B. Much of the difference can be attributed to the adoption of the Montreal Protocol in 1987, which resulted in a significant decline in the emission of chloroflurocarbons. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-01-30/1988-global-warming-forecast-by-james-hansen-proved-mostly-true

    The post seems to think it is significant that CO2 concentrations “did not drop during the COVID recession despite major drops in human energy emissions.” Of course they did not drop. Once CO2 is released into the atmosphere, it stays there a long time. According to NASA , it can remain there for 300-1,000 years. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      The premise of the post is that most of the wild predictions were wrong and we should be skeptical when we hear more. I’m not backing off that. But you do make a key point: Often the actual predictions were about a range of outcomes, but the media coverage and alarmists always go with the headline grabbing extreme.

      Now, gee Dick, your side cannot have it both ways. The protocol that changed the chemical used in HVAC systems led to adoption of an alternative, which was just banned by Congress because it may be a WORSE GHG than the one it replaced. The CFC reduction was about the ozone layer. If the replacement chemical made things worse, how did eliminating CFC’s help? Pick one but you cannot have both. It was Larry who pointed to that in the recent omnibus bill….

      I may go look up the original Hansen claims, if I can, but always be careful to separate degrees F and C when on this point. Can make a big difference….

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Call all of science wrong for wild predictions and instead gloming on to bloggers and folks with “degrees” to rely on for better predictions?

        whatsupwiththat?

        In terms of responses to the issue – again – why is more than one interation proof of failure?

        A lot of pollution reduction IS a series of changes that get adjusted over time as we better understand their impact.

        Same thing happens with a lot of science. Medicines – look promising then side effects, go back and re-do, next generation, etc…

        that how science works. Expecting dead-on predictions and first-time solutions from Science or else it justifes “skeptic” ?

        geeze…

        Science has NEVER been perfect the first time around on anything – it’s an accumulating body of knowledge – we “learn” over time.

        What’s the alternative? Latching on to folks who deny science in general and gen up their own beliefs as better?

        Science is not GOD! I know that comes as a shock but it’s true.

      2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Uh yep, the “wild” prediction was wrong. Nevertheless, a dire one was bang-on.

        Snow is weather. Glacier ice is climate.

      3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        You are correct: the major thesis of your post was the most extreme and alarmist predictions of those concerned about climate change have not come to fruition yet. However, that does not mean that significant changes in the climate are underway, with effects being felt now, e.g. melting of glaciers and polar ice and increase in ocean temperatures and that these effects will have a long-range impact on the planet and us as human beings. There are extremists and alarmists in any group.

        Your post led off denigrating the predictions of Hansen, so I focused on that. I apologize for mischaracterizing your overall premise.

        However, environmentalists can have it both ways with relation to CFCs. The chart in the Bloomberg article to which I linked shows that the earth’s average temperature (with relation to the 1950-1980 average) decreased and then gradually increased after the adoption of the Montreal Protocol. The rapid decrease in CFCs was not anticipated by Hansen and his colleagues. CFCs not only destroy the ozone layer, but also function as a greenhouse gas. As a result, the decrease in CFCs resulted in a reduced rate of increase. Scientists estimated that “the CFC ban has prevented the equivalent of 10 billion tonnes of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere in 2010, five times the annual reduction target set by the Kyoto Protocol.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120224110737.htm

        By about 2012, the use of HFCs as a substitute for CFCs had increased significantly and scientists realized that they were an even more potent greenhouse gas. As a result, the Obama administration negotiated an international phase-down of HFCs—the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol in 2016, but the Trump administration refused to send the amendment to the Senate for ratification. The legislation just passed includes a phasing down of HFCs. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/congress-passes-major-climate-legislation-in-year-end-omnibus/

        1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
          Bill O’Keefe

          Take a look at this study by two eminently qualified climate experts–https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Global-Mean-Temperature-Anomaly-Record_12.08.20.pdf. As lawyers say Res ipsa loquitur !

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            Thanks. It’s nice to read a different perspective. I have printed the article out and will read it when I have some time to absorb it.

          2. One common aspect of EVERY prediction and future modeling report — a complete lack of technological invention/innovation and how it could affect the model outcomes.

            Accepting the premise that all that could be invented has been invented is, well, laughable.

          3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            Most models project future results based on present conditions. It would be irresponsible to factor in some theoretical or assumed innovation. The point of modeling is to warn society of what is likely to happen if either (1) current behavior is not modified or (2) technological solutions are not developed. Modeling does not assume that all that can be invented has been invented; rather, it provides incentives for innovation. Hence, the rapid development of bigger and more powerful wind turbines, more efficient solar panels, and small, more powerful battery storage.

          4. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Larry, you may have read this Carbon Brief but you don’t understand some of the subtle implications. It makes clear that modelers use parameterization and tuning to get it right which means that they are adjusting for uncertainties like cloud formation, solar irradiance and aerosols. Even the IPCC admits that the understanding of these is not particularly good. Anyone who has experience with models knows that the greater the number of variables and the greater the uncertainty in those variables, the less accurate the outputs. Add to that the effects of chaos in the system and the value for forecasting as opposed to studying is significantly reduced. A few years ago in Congressional testimony John Christy, one of the developers of the satellite systems, showed a comparison of something like 14 models with actual temperatures. They greatly over predicted.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            BIll, as someone who has worked with models most of my work career – I think I DO “understand” their use and their limitations.

            They are a tool and they do have to be used correctly and over time, those who use them, improve them , as more knowledge is gained about assumptions in the model.

            “modelling” underlies far more of our lives right now than most people realize.

            It’s science. I trust science.

            When I say “science”, I don’t mean one guy with an opinion or a degree or even a real scientist with one result – I mean hundreds /thousands of scientists over years who work to replicate each others findings and when they don’t, it causes more investigation as to why and they move forward when they do get the answers.

            Every day, much of what you do, what you rely on is based on modelling – from the pandemic to the tires on your car to the meds you take.

          6. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            None of that has anything to do with the accuracy of climate models. You say it’s science but science as I am sure you know has to be able to be validated and a hypothesis falsified. As someone who has so much experience in modelling you surely understand that models can be constructed to produce any result you want.
            As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, we are all entitled to our ow opinions, just not our own facts.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Clilmate models are not unlike many other models in the basic way they work.

            They’re all based on mathematical algorithims and incorporating data they have.

            re: ” As someone who has so much experience in modelling you surely understand that models can be constructed to produce any result you want.”

            This is true and this is why others look to review such models and replicate them.

            Are you saying that all climate scientists look the other way when a model is wrong – that as a group they are engaging in a massive worldwide conspiracy to falsify models?

            One guy can be dishonest or wrong – but hundreds scientists ? There is not ONE model for climate. There are dozens, hundreds, just like there are for hurricanes and weather…

            Are all those models fudged to produce the same results?

            There is nothing inherently dishonest or wrong with Climate Scientists, They go through years of training and then a career of experience – just like cancer researcers do or folks who send missiles up to orbit or hit a target 10,000 miles away.

          8. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            In my opinion, there is a big difference. It is that climate models incorporate a larger number of assumptions because the system is chaotic and there is great uncertainty about many interactions and variables.

  25. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Solar, wind, and the shift from coal? Still, what’s there is there, and we’re simply slowed the add.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/

  26. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Solar, wind, and the shift from coal? Still, what’s there is there, and we’re simply slowed the add.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/

  27. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    What has been going on since the late 80s is the application of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals–“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”and
    “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” First we had global warming but that did catch the public’s imagination, so we changed to climate change since it always does. The Apocalytics by the application of the above two rules have created a band wagon effect in which few question the conventional wisdom because when they do they are subject to another of Alinsky’s rules–ridicule is a powerful weapon.
    The idea that we can build models to predict climate decades in the future is the height of arrogance. It ignores Lorenz’s Chaos Theory. Further, advocates continually ignore or make excuses for why these models contiuously overstate actual temperature increases which themselves are averages that reflect significant variability. In 2008, the world renown oceanographer, Carl Wunsch in a presentation to EPA, said that sea level has been rising since the last ice age and will continue until the next one.
    None of this means that human activities or GHG emissions have no effect on climate or that responsible actions to mitigate are not called for. It does mean that the obsession with using fossil fuels and CO2 emissions is just that, an obsession that will leave us poorer, less free, and still facing the climate issue decades to come.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Carl Wunsch is a good example. He has expressed his exasperation concerning the extreme predictions of climate change effects. He has complained about his comments being misconstrued or taken out of context. He explains that he has ” tried to stay out of the `climate wars’ because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.”

      The bottom line for him: “I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component.” Furthermore, “Some elements [of climate change] are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record is so clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise,…).”
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/comment-page-3/

      1. I am not sure I agree totally with Wunsch, but there are plenty of good justifications for conserving natural resources.

        In the case of fossil fuels, by conserving, and on the radical assumption that mankind actually needs the fossil fuels, we save some of the resources for the future generations, which is a serious concern as we march to 10-Billion people. By using less, we pollute less… not just fossil fuels, if you use less renewables energy, again this is better.

        1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
          Bill O’Keefe

          The fallacy of running out of oil and gas has been around for almost a century. During the Carter Administration it was predicted that we would be out of oil by the end of the century. Fracking and deep sea bed methane prove that is not something to worry about. As a friend once remarked, the Stone Age didn’t end when we ran out of stones and the oil age won’t end when we run out of oil. It will end when technology brings along a better, more cost-efficient alternative. He wasn’t thinking about government forced technology, however.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            re: “government-forced technology”.

            Do you consider water/sewer/stormwater/ and other laws that result in a cleaner environment to be “forced technology”?

          2. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Give me a break. You know what technology forcing means. If you don’t then there is no point in me making any more comments.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            BIll – when we pass laws REQUIRING reduced pollution, it FORCES technology to be employed to do that.

            So I’m asking if that’s not what you are talking about when you say “forced technology”, can you give me an example?

            Are you saying that technology is being force with no particular purpose or that the purpose itself is wrong or what?

          4. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Technology forcing applies to technology mandated by government whether or not it is within the realm of the possible or the best choice among alternatives.
            The government is within its area of expertise when it is the customer for a technology. It is not when it arbitrarily sets a standard for someone else to meet on a time line that may or may not be practical. There are a number of examples that cover the past and present. Early CAFE standards forced the domestic auto makers to sell small cars at a loss to meet the fleet average. Now California’s zero emission mandate forces them to sell EVs at a loss and subsidize Elon Musk by buying his emission credits. The externalities are damaging and not necessary. But those who like command and control don’t really care about the impact on those who are less well off.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Sometimes, not often, technology gets forced too early but the vast amount of them do not.

            I cannot think of any major pollutions laws that were subsequently rolled back because they ended up being “too much”.

            I can think of dozens of examples where we grossly underestimated the damage from pollution and externalities and had to actually tighten down pollution standards even more.

            We routinely underestimate the damage from pollution… we routinely end up having to go back and further restrict.

            Conservatives have almost always fought pollution standards on the front – I can think of only very few that they were on-board from the get-go.

  28. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    In the real world, which excludes journalism and climate science, credibility is a factor in believability. One way of measuring credibility is checking the accuracy of prior predictions. Another is requiring one to address all possible causes of an event, as well as addressing opponents’ arguments.

    Had climate scientists’ prior wild predictions been challenged by the same standards that prevail in the real world, many would have been found to be wildly wrong, such that current projections would be received with skepticism. And if journalism were still a profession seeking truth, these prior wild predictions would be noted and current ones questioned.

    Similarly, the motives of the climate scientists (more funding) would be raised in public. Climate scientists would be challenged to demonstrate the delta of human-generated warming (which seems to exist) from the long-term warming cycle that we are in. And one would also expect research and reporting about the huge transfer of wealth from ordinary people to wealthy landowners that is occurring.

    Bottom line – we’d be seeking the truth somewhere between climate science is a fraud and climate science is a religious truth.

    1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
      Bill O’Keefe

      Amen to that. Motives are everything–funding, recognition, travel around the world, etc.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Climate change is part of the real world. You want climate scientists to be “challenged to demonstrate the delta of human-generated warming (which seems to exist) from the long-term warming cycle that we are in.” They have been so challenged and have demonstrated it.

      When scientists input only natural phenomena such as the sun’s intensity, changes in the Earth’s orbit and ocean circulation, the models they use cannot reproduce the changes that they observed have actually occurred. As Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, summarizes, “We have independent evidence that says when you put in greenhouse gases, you get the changes that we see. If you don’t put in greenhouse gases, you don’t. And if you put in all the other things people think about—the changes in the earth’s orbit, the ocean circulation changes, El Niño, land use changes, air pollution, smog, ozone depletion—all of those things, none of them actually produce the changes that we see in multiple data sets across multiple areas of the system, all of which have been independently replicated.” In other words, only when the emissions from human activity are included, are the models and data sets able to accurately reproduce the warming in the ocean and the atmosphere that is occurring. Peter du Menocal, Dean of Science at Columbia University, estimates, “Today, almost 100 percent [plus or minus 20 percent] of the unusual warmth that we’ve experienced in the last decade is due to greenhouse gas emissions.” https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/04/how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/

      It is not up to the climate scientists to do the “research and reporting about the huge transfer of wealth from ordinary people to wealthy landowners that is occurring.” That is up to the politicians, political scientists, economists, etc.

  29. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    All of science has always been about an expanding body of knowledge two steps forward one step back your predictions are not always correct you find that out and you move forward. It works that way in all scientific Fields like medicine cancer research tectonics you name it they all do the same thing none of them has the t entire ruth right now. Not unlike predicting a hurricane path no one really gets it 100% right but the consensus pretty much shows you that it it’s real and it is going to hit and it’s going to hit somewhere in the range of where they’re
    pointingg generally.

    1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
      Bill O’Keefe

      Are you saying that you now don’t accept the catastrophic predictions and remedies?

    2. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      The difference is that a major failure of research to replicate the hypothesis generally is publicized, at least within the affected discipline, and funding moves to other research. If it didn’t, we’d still be funding research into miasma as the cause of malaria.

      Why would any intelligent society fund the clowns who predicted the “Snows of Kilimanjaro” would be gone by last year? It would be like keeping a head coach of a football team that hasn’t won a game in the last three seasons.

      No cost-benefit analysis is done. We don’t look for results that produce the greatest benefit for the least cost. We don’t ask whether advocates have a conflict of interest. We don’t try to identify who is paying and who is reaping the benefits.

      You don’t need to doubt the human impact on greenhouse gas emissions to raise questions or to get into the weeds. But it takes thought over fear and people with more integrity than climate scientists and journalists; neither of which ask any probing questions.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Climate science is not like physics, chemistry, or medicine. One cannot observe conditions, develop a hypothesis, and then conduct experiments to test the hypothesis. For climate science, one can only measure changes that have occurred over a long period of time and try to determine what led to those changes. Historical evidence, such as tree rings and ice cores, can help in this search. Armed with this information, one forms an explanation as to what led to the changes and projects what changes will occur in the future, based on current conditions. As I pointed out in may replies to Steve Haner and Bill O’Keefe, the earth’s average ground temperature has risen almost as much as James Hansen predicted 30 years ago and scientists have eliminated virtually all “natural” reasons as being factors contributing to that increase.

        As for the Mt. Kilmanjaro prediction, that was an unfortunate example, chosen perhaps for dramatization reasons. Glaciers are much more complicated than one would expect. I recently discovered a lengthy article examining Mt. Kilmanjaro and the reasons why its snows are not melting due to climate change. The reasons are complex, but it boils down, as I understand the article, to the fact that the summit of the mountain is so high that it not affected by changes in temperature at ground level. The authors conclude, however, “The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming. There is ample and conclusive evidence that Earth’s average temperature has increased in the past 100 years, and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence.” https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-shrinking-glaciers-of-kilimanjaro-can-global-warming-be-blamed

        I agree that we should look at costs and benefits and try to find answers that produce the greatest benefit for the least cost. And we should ask questions about conflicts of interest on all sides and who is “paying and who is reaping the benefits”. And, we should challenge the findings and conclusions of scientists. But our concern for costs, benefits, and conflicts of interests should not blind us to the scientific conclusions, just as those scientific conclusions should not excuse us from conducting cost-benefit analyses. And a scientific finding and conclusion should be evaluated on its merits, no matter who is paying for the research.

        Lastly, I disagree with your denigrating the integrity of climate scientists. It is my experience that there is a lot of integrity and internal debate within any scientific community. Just because the scientists in a field have reached a general consensus over some basic principles does not mean their integrity has been compromised. After all, there are few, if any, geologists who question the general theory of tectonics, but there is no one questioning their integrity for not doing so.

  30. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    Good reporting, Steve. Likely, though, future predictions from here on out are hot air given that China almost surely will have neutered, if not shut down altogether, the US economy by 2030, if our home grown Leftist Progressives have not already beat them to it by 2030.

    1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      Climate scientists and journalists are not required to acknowledge and explain any bad predictions from the past. It would be heresy against the civil religion and bad for rent seeking.

  31. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Both expected and unexpected results is important and when results are not as expected it wants science to find out why and then go forward you can’t do that if you called things that are not expected failures

    1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      But why would you continue to fund those whose predicted result never came about? What you want is a penalty-free life for those who advocate “woke” positions. Instead, lets’ fund someone else. Fund those that attempt to distinguish the impacts of human behavior from results of natural phenomena. Challenge those who make bald predictions with the failures of other predictions.

      Your approach, if applied to crime, would allow the serial murderer to walk out of jail because he said he won’t kill again. Ted Bundy should still be walking the streets if we applied the standards of climate science to serial murder.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        As I pointed out above, we have funded those who ” attempt to distinguish the impacts of human behavior from results of natural phenomena.” The result is that almost all the increase in the earth’s average temperature in recent years has been the result of human behavior. https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/04/how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/

        Usually, when one does not like the answer to a question, he ignores the answer and continues to ask the question.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Which is why one must repeat the answer. Eventually one dies.

          If you latch on to NOTHING ELSE in that report, this is the key phrase: “Scientists also can distinguish between CO2 molecules that are emitted naturally by plants and animals and those that result from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon molecules from different sources have different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei; these different versions of molecules are called isotopes.”

          They can and have tracked the C12, C13, and C14 in the atmosphere. C12 has only one way to get there — from carbon bound to the ground and removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago, entering now by the burning of fossil fuels.

          The other two carbon atoms are the result of the current biological cycle, i.e., I eat and burn the flora, I breathe, the flora sucks it up, rinse, repeat.

          The rise in C12 is the killer, and our grubby fingerprints are all over it.

          1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            The chemical formula for carbon dioxide is CO2. Each carbon dioxide molecule contains one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms, bound to each other by covalent bonds. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to warming. CO2 from whatever source is still CO2. It has nothing to do with C-12 or another chemical.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            geeze BIll – do you disagree with NOAA?

            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/isotopes/stable.html#:~:text=The%20atmosphere%20has%20a%20certain,while%20others%20are%20%E2%80%9Clight%E2%80%9D.

            I truly do not understand. There are hundreds of scientists with heavy duty scientific credentials saying this – and people with little or no background are saying it’s wrong. How?

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Bill – the debate is whether or not you believe the science coming from the vast majority of scientists or you think others or youself understand the data better.

            Why would you rely on science for all manner of things authorotatively from cancer to genetics but not climate?

            Why do you think you know more than them?

  32. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Go get ‘em, Dick!

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      He’s digging. He’s debating with data. I will never complain about that.

  33. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Go get ’em, Dick!

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      He’s digging. He’s debating with data. I will never complain about that.

  34. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    What has been going on since the late 80s is the application of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals–“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”and
    “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” First we had global warming but that did catch the public’s imagination, so we changed to climate change since it always does. The Apocalytics by the application of the above two rules have created a band wagon effect in which few question the conventional wisdom because when they do they are subject to another of Alinsky’s rules–ridicule is a powerful weapon.
    The idea that we can build models to predict climate decades in the future is the height of arrogance. It ignores Lorenz’s Chaos Theory. Further, advocates continually ignore or make excuses for why these models contiuously overstate actual temperature increases which themselves are averages that reflect significant variability. In 2008, the world renown oceanographer, Carl Wunsch in a presentation to EPA, said that sea level has been rising since the last ice age and will continue until the next one.
    None of this means that human activities or GHG emissions have no effect on climate or that responsible actions to mitigate are not called for. It does mean that the obsession with using fossil fuels and CO2 emissions is just that, an obsession that will leave us poorer, less free, and still facing the climate issue decades to come.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Carl Wunsch is a good example. He has expressed his exasperation concerning the extreme predictions of climate change effects. He has complained about his comments being misconstrued or taken out of context. He explains that he has ” tried to stay out of the `climate wars’ because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.”

      The bottom line for him: “I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component.” Furthermore, “Some elements [of climate change] are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record is so clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise,…).”
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/comment-page-3/

      1. I am not sure I agree totally with Wunsch, but there are plenty of good justifications for conserving natural resources.

        In the case of fossil fuels, by conserving, and on the radical assumption that mankind actually needs the fossil fuels, we save some of the resources for the future generations, which is a serious concern as we march to 10-Billion people. By using less, we pollute less… not just fossil fuels, if you use less renewables energy, again this is better.

        1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
          Bill O’Keefe

          The fallacy of running out of oil and gas has been around for almost a century. During the Carter Administration it was predicted that we would be out of oil by the end of the century. Fracking and deep sea bed methane prove that is not something to worry about. As a friend once remarked, the Stone Age didn’t end when we ran out of stones and the oil age won’t end when we run out of oil. It will end when technology brings along a better, more cost-efficient alternative. He wasn’t thinking about government forced technology, however.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            re: “government-forced technology”.

            Do you consider water/sewer/stormwater/ and other laws that result in a cleaner environment to be “forced technology”?

          2. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Give me a break. You know what technology forcing means. If you don’t then there is no point in me making any more comments.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            BIll – when we pass laws REQUIRING reduced pollution, it FORCES technology to be employed to do that.

            So I’m asking if that’s not what you are talking about when you say “forced technology”, can you give me an example?

            Are you saying that technology is being force with no particular purpose or that the purpose itself is wrong or what?

          4. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Technology forcing applies to technology mandated by government whether or not it is within the realm of the possible or the best choice among alternatives.
            The government is within its area of expertise when it is the customer for a technology. It is not when it arbitrarily sets a standard for someone else to meet on a time line that may or may not be practical. There are a number of examples that cover the past and present. Early CAFE standards forced the domestic auto makers to sell small cars at a loss to meet the fleet average. Now California’s zero emission mandate forces them to sell EVs at a loss and subsidize Elon Musk by buying his emission credits. The externalities are damaging and not necessary. But those who like command and control don’t really care about the impact on those who are less well off.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Sometimes, not often, technology gets forced too early but the vast amount of them do not.

            I cannot think of any major pollutions laws that were subsequently rolled back because they ended up being “too much”.

            I can think of dozens of examples where we grossly underestimated the damage from pollution and externalities and had to actually tighten down pollution standards even more.

            We routinely underestimate the damage from pollution… we routinely end up having to go back and further restrict.

            Conservatives have almost always fought pollution standards on the front – I can think of only very few that they were on-board from the get-go.

  35. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    In the real world, which excludes journalism and climate science, credibility is a factor in believability. One way of measuring credibility is checking the accuracy of prior predictions. Another is requiring one to address all possible causes of an event, as well as addressing opponents’ arguments.

    Had climate scientists’ prior wild predictions been challenged by the same standards that prevail in the real world, many would have been found to be wildly wrong, such that current projections would be received with skepticism. And if journalism were still a profession seeking truth, these prior wild predictions would be noted and current ones questioned.

    Similarly, the motives of the climate scientists (more funding) would be raised in public. Climate scientists would be challenged to demonstrate the delta of human-generated warming (which seems to exist) from the long-term warming cycle that we are in. And one would also expect research and reporting about the huge transfer of wealth from ordinary people to wealthy landowners that is occurring.

    Bottom line – we’d be seeking the truth somewhere between climate science is a fraud and climate science is a religious truth.

    1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
      Bill O’Keefe

      Amen to that. Motives are everything–funding, recognition, travel around the world, etc.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Climate change is part of the real world. You want climate scientists to be “challenged to demonstrate the delta of human-generated warming (which seems to exist) from the long-term warming cycle that we are in.” They have been so challenged and have demonstrated it.

      When scientists input only natural phenomena such as the sun’s intensity, changes in the Earth’s orbit and ocean circulation, the models they use cannot reproduce the changes that they observed have actually occurred. As Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, summarizes, “We have independent evidence that says when you put in greenhouse gases, you get the changes that we see. If you don’t put in greenhouse gases, you don’t. And if you put in all the other things people think about—the changes in the earth’s orbit, the ocean circulation changes, El Niño, land use changes, air pollution, smog, ozone depletion—all of those things, none of them actually produce the changes that we see in multiple data sets across multiple areas of the system, all of which have been independently replicated.” In other words, only when the emissions from human activity are included, are the models and data sets able to accurately reproduce the warming in the ocean and the atmosphere that is occurring. Peter du Menocal, Dean of Science at Columbia University, estimates, “Today, almost 100 percent [plus or minus 20 percent] of the unusual warmth that we’ve experienced in the last decade is due to greenhouse gas emissions.” https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/04/how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/

      It is not up to the climate scientists to do the “research and reporting about the huge transfer of wealth from ordinary people to wealthy landowners that is occurring.” That is up to the politicians, political scientists, economists, etc.

  36. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    All of science has always been about an expanding body of knowledge two steps forward one step back your predictions are not always correct you find that out and you move forward. It works that way in all scientific Fields like medicine cancer research tectonics you name it they all do the same thing none of them has the t entire ruth right now. Not unlike predicting a hurricane path no one really gets it 100% right but the consensus pretty much shows you that it it’s real and it is going to hit and it’s going to hit somewhere in the range of where they’re
    pointingg generally.

    1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
      Bill O’Keefe

      Are you saying that you now don’t accept the catastrophic predictions and remedies?

    2. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      The difference is that a major failure of research to replicate the hypothesis generally is publicized, at least within the affected discipline, and funding moves to other research. If it didn’t, we’d still be funding research into miasma as the cause of malaria.

      Why would any intelligent society fund the clowns who predicted the “Snows of Kilimanjaro” would be gone by last year? It would be like keeping a head coach of a football team that hasn’t won a game in the last three seasons.

      No cost-benefit analysis is done. We don’t look for results that produce the greatest benefit for the least cost. We don’t ask whether advocates have a conflict of interest. We don’t try to identify who is paying and who is reaping the benefits.

      You don’t need to doubt the human impact on greenhouse gas emissions to raise questions or to get into the weeds. But it takes thought over fear and people with more integrity than climate scientists and journalists; neither of which ask any probing questions.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        Climate science is not like physics, chemistry, or medicine. One cannot observe conditions, develop a hypothesis, and then conduct experiments to test the hypothesis. For climate science, one can only measure changes that have occurred over a long period of time and try to determine what led to those changes. Historical evidence, such as tree rings and ice cores, can help in this search. Armed with this information, one forms an explanation as to what led to the changes and projects what changes will occur in the future, based on current conditions. As I pointed out in may replies to Steve Haner and Bill O’Keefe, the earth’s average ground temperature has risen almost as much as James Hansen predicted 30 years ago and scientists have eliminated virtually all “natural” reasons as being factors contributing to that increase.

        As for the Mt. Kilmanjaro prediction, that was an unfortunate example, chosen perhaps for dramatization reasons. Glaciers are much more complicated than one would expect. I recently discovered a lengthy article examining Mt. Kilmanjaro and the reasons why its snows are not melting due to climate change. The reasons are complex, but it boils down, as I understand the article, to the fact that the summit of the mountain is so high that it not affected by changes in temperature at ground level. The authors conclude, however, “The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming. There is ample and conclusive evidence that Earth’s average temperature has increased in the past 100 years, and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence.” https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-shrinking-glaciers-of-kilimanjaro-can-global-warming-be-blamed

        I agree that we should look at costs and benefits and try to find answers that produce the greatest benefit for the least cost. And we should ask questions about conflicts of interest on all sides and who is “paying and who is reaping the benefits”. And, we should challenge the findings and conclusions of scientists. But our concern for costs, benefits, and conflicts of interests should not blind us to the scientific conclusions, just as those scientific conclusions should not excuse us from conducting cost-benefit analyses. And a scientific finding and conclusion should be evaluated on its merits, no matter who is paying for the research.

        Lastly, I disagree with your denigrating the integrity of climate scientists. It is my experience that there is a lot of integrity and internal debate within any scientific community. Just because the scientists in a field have reached a general consensus over some basic principles does not mean their integrity has been compromised. After all, there are few, if any, geologists who question the general theory of tectonics, but there is no one questioning their integrity for not doing so.

  37. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    Good reporting, Steve. Likely, though, future predictions from here on out are hot air given that China almost surely will have neutered, if not shut down altogether, the US economy by 2030, if our home grown Leftist Progressives have not already beat them to it by 2030.

    1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      Climate scientists and journalists are not required to acknowledge and explain any bad predictions from the past. It would be heresy against the civil religion and bad for rent seeking.

  38. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Both expected and unexpected results is important and when results are not as expected it wants science to find out why and then go forward you can’t do that if you called things that are not expected failures

    1. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      But why would you continue to fund those whose predicted result never came about? What you want is a penalty-free life for those who advocate “woke” positions. Instead, lets’ fund someone else. Fund those that attempt to distinguish the impacts of human behavior from results of natural phenomena. Challenge those who make bald predictions with the failures of other predictions.

      Your approach, if applied to crime, would allow the serial murderer to walk out of jail because he said he won’t kill again. Ted Bundy should still be walking the streets if we applied the standards of climate science to serial murder.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        As I pointed out above, we have funded those who ” attempt to distinguish the impacts of human behavior from results of natural phenomena.” The result is that almost all the increase in the earth’s average temperature in recent years has been the result of human behavior. https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/04/how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/

        Usually, when one does not like the answer to a question, he ignores the answer and continues to ask the question.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Which is why one must repeat the answer. Eventually one dies.

          If you latch on to NOTHING ELSE in that report, this is the key phrase: “Scientists also can distinguish between CO2 molecules that are emitted naturally by plants and animals and those that result from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon molecules from different sources have different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei; these different versions of molecules are called isotopes.”

          They can and have tracked the C12, C13, and C14 in the atmosphere. C12 has only one way to get there — from carbon bound to the ground and removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago, entering now by the burning of fossil fuels.

          The other two carbon atoms are the result of the current biological cycle, i.e., I eat and burn the flora, I breathe, the flora sucks it up, rinse, repeat.

          The rise in C12 is the killer, and our grubby fingerprints are all over it.

          1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            The chemical formula for carbon dioxide is CO2. Each carbon dioxide molecule contains one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms, bound to each other by covalent bonds. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to warming. CO2 from whatever source is still CO2. It has nothing to do with C-12 or another chemical.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            geeze BIll – do you disagree with NOAA?

            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/isotopes/stable.html#:~:text=The%20atmosphere%20has%20a%20certain,while%20others%20are%20%E2%80%9Clight%E2%80%9D.

            I truly do not understand. There are hundreds of scientists with heavy duty scientific credentials saying this – and people with little or no background are saying it’s wrong. How?

          3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            “In fact there are three isotopes of carbon atoms – all three react the same way in chemical reactions–the only chemical difference between them is that they have slightly different masses. The heaviest is carbon-14 (which, in the scientific world, is written as 14C), followed by carbon-13 (13C), and the lightest, most common carbon-12 (12C). Different carbon reservoirs “like” different isotopes, so the relative proportion of the three isotopes is different in each reservoir – each has its own, identifying, isotopic fingerprint. By examining the isotopic mixture in the atmosphere, and knowing the isotopic fingerprint of each reservoir, atmospheric scientists can determine how much carbon dioxide is coming and going from each reservoir, making isotopes an ideal tracer of sources and sinks of carbon dioxide.”

            Same site, deeper in. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/isotopes/

          4. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            According to the document that you referenced, “In fact there are three isotopes of carbon atoms – all three react the same way in chemical reactions–the only chemical difference between them is that they have slightly different masses.” So, as I said CO2 is still CO2. But I hope that you realize that greenhouse gases make up a very small part of our atmosphere. The permanent gases are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere. Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0-4%

          5. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            It doesn’t take much. And the discussion was human contribution which is proved by the isotope ratios.

          6. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            You are making a defense for an argument that no one is making. It is an accepted fact that human activities produce greenhouse gases which contribute to the warming of the earth. The debate is and has been how much of the warming that we have observed over the past century or since the end of the Little Ice Age is caused by man and how much is natural. The attribution question is far from settled, in spite of assertions to the contrary.

          7. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            “It is an accepted fact that human activities produce greenhouse gases which contribute to the warming of the earth.”

            “The attribution question is far from settled, in spite of assertions to the contrary.”

            Uh… okay Bill. What “attribution”question is that?

            You do realize that many of the “deniers” are claiming the CO2 rise is in keeping with past natural rises, no? The use of the isotope ratio allows quantification of the bio-cycle versus fossil fuel burning.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Bill – the debate is whether or not you believe the science coming from the vast majority of scientists or you think others or youself understand the data better.

            Why would you rely on science for all manner of things authorotatively from cancer to genetics but not climate?

            Why do you think you know more than them?

  39. CO2 is not the only problem, prehaps just the one receiving the most attention. Cyanobacteria infest flooded ditches, streams, lakes, rivers, and they all release nitrous oxide which lasts about 114 years in the atmosphere and according to insideclimatenews.org, has 300 times the warming effect of the same amount of CO2.

    Meanwhile, in Virginia, the flooding caused by VDOT failure to maintain drainage from roadside ditches, and the abdication of the Dept of Environmental Quality to see that streams are able to flow to their natural outlets, along with their storm water management policies of detention and retention, encourage anaerobic bacteria in flooded soil that produce and release methane, hydrogen sulfide and nitrous oxide, all long-lasting greenhouse gases.

    From Drowning a County:
    “The Warnell School of Forest Resources in Georgia describes additional serious impacts of flooded soils on the air quality.
    In flooded soils…the gasses produced include carbon-dioxide,
    methane, and hydrogen. Other materials, some extremely volatile
    and some very toxic are produced. Examples of other materials
    produced by decomposition of organic material under anaerobic
    conditions include various hydrocarbons, alcohols, carbonyls,
    fatty acids, phenolic acids, sulfur compounds, acetaldehyde,
    and cyanogenic compounds. Many of these materials escape as
    gas bubbles, dissolve in the water, or float to the water surface.
    (Coder, 1994.)”

    “Efforts have been made since 1980 to drain rice paddies in
    China at least once a year to reduce production of methane from
    the flooded soil. (Nature, 2009.)”

    1. idiocracy Avatar
      idiocracy

      It’s not just VDOT. Prince William County’s management of the Lake Jackson Dam (which only exists for recreation; Lake Jackson is a private lake. Why is a public entity maintaining a dam that exists only for a private lake?) has been thought to be causing upstream flooding in Nokesville.

      Old Church Road, which is about two miles from the dam, regularly floods. One time I drove up to the flood waters to see if they were low enough to drive through. Well, even if they were, I wasn’t going to drive through them because they smelled like RAW SEWAGE. And there aren’t any sanitary sewers within at least 3-4 miles from there.

      All that I can guess is that the upstream flooding is picking up fecal matter from cow pastures and the like, and perhaps some septic systems too.

      Seems like a violation of environmental regulations to me. But I expect that cows will fly before DEQ ever does anything about it.

  40. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    On the fuding of science. It’s as if we’d threaten those developing hurricane models that if their models don’t predict exactly where they hit and when and what category – that we take away the funding to improve the models.

    All science tries to advance by theory and others see if they can replicate and confirm.

    And it’s not just one scientists with one model. It’s dozens , hundreds and not a single model is dead-on correct but most of them show similar results – namely that a hurricane does exist and is tracking in a certain direction and will hit during some time period.

    BUT if you’d cut off funding for any that did not get it exactly right – what good would that be? all future work on the models would stop without more funding.

    The same goes for other science, like cancer, or alzheimers, etc… the purpose of scientific inquiry is not to find all the facts and truth is a single go… it’s over time – sorting through what has been fought to be true and what has been found to b not true.

    How many believe the folks that have done these vaccines – did it flawlessly the first time around?

  41. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    On the fuding of science. It’s as if we’d threaten those developing hurricane models that if their models don’t predict exactly where they hit and when and what category – that we take away the funding to improve the models.

    All science tries to advance by theory and others see if they can replicate and confirm.

    And it’s not just one scientists with one model. It’s dozens , hundreds and not a single model is dead-on correct but most of them show similar results – namely that a hurricane does exist and is tracking in a certain direction and will hit during some time period.

    BUT if you’d cut off funding for any that did not get it exactly right – what good would that be? all future work on the models would stop without more funding.

    The same goes for other science, like cancer, or alzheimers, etc… the purpose of scientific inquiry is not to find all the facts and truth is a single go… it’s over time – sorting through what has been fought to be true and what has been found to b not true.

    How many believe the folks that have done these vaccines – did it flawlessly the first time around?

  42. I am shocked and disappointed Steve did not quote my high school term paper from 1971, in there I said we’d be flooded over by Year 2000. Still have it.

    I think Year 2000 was the first “doomsday deadline” because early 60’s is when the Co2 data trends from Mauna Loa proved the CO2 trend was ever increasing. Arrhenius first warned about CO2 in the 1890’s but it took until mid-50’s to learn how to measure it reliably (up on remote mountaintop).

  43. I am shocked and disappointed Steve did not quote my high school term paper from 1971, in there I said we’d be flooded over by Year 2000. Still have it.

    I think Year 2000 was the first “doomsday deadline” because early 60’s is when the Co2 data trends from Mauna Loa proved the CO2 trend was ever increasing. Arrhenius first warned about CO2 in the 1890’s but it took until mid-50’s to learn how to measure it reliably (up on remote mountaintop).

  44. CO2 is not the only problem, prehaps just the one receiving the most attention. Cyanobacteria infest flooded ditches, streams, lakes, rivers, and they all release nitrous oxide which lasts about 114 years in the atmosphere and according to insideclimatenews.org, has 300 times the warming effect of the same amount of CO2.

    Meanwhile, in Virginia, the flooding caused by VDOT failure to maintain drainage from roadside ditches, and the abdication of the Dept of Environmental Quality to see that streams are able to flow to their natural outlets, along with their storm water management policies of detention and retention, encourage anaerobic bacteria in flooded soil that produce and release methane, hydrogen sulfide and nitrous oxide, all long-lasting greenhouse gases.

    From Drowning a County:
    “The Warnell School of Forest Resources in Georgia describes additional serious impacts of flooded soils on the air quality.
    In flooded soils…the gasses produced include carbon-dioxide,
    methane, and hydrogen. Other materials, some extremely volatile
    and some very toxic are produced. Examples of other materials
    produced by decomposition of organic material under anaerobic
    conditions include various hydrocarbons, alcohols, carbonyls,
    fatty acids, phenolic acids, sulfur compounds, acetaldehyde,
    and cyanogenic compounds. Many of these materials escape as
    gas bubbles, dissolve in the water, or float to the water surface.
    (Coder, 1994.)”

    “Efforts have been made since 1980 to drain rice paddies in
    China at least once a year to reduce production of methane from
    the flooded soil. (Nature, 2009.)”

    1. idiocracy Avatar
      idiocracy

      It’s not just VDOT. Prince William County’s management of the Lake Jackson Dam (which only exists for recreation; Lake Jackson is a private lake. Why is a public entity maintaining a dam that exists only for a private lake?) has been thought to be causing upstream flooding in Nokesville.

      Old Church Road, which is about two miles from the dam, regularly floods. One time I drove up to the flood waters to see if they were low enough to drive through. Well, even if they were, I wasn’t going to drive through them because they smelled like RAW SEWAGE. And there aren’t any sanitary sewers within at least 3-4 miles from there.

      All that I can guess is that the upstream flooding is picking up fecal matter from cow pastures and the like, and perhaps some septic systems too.

      Seems like a violation of environmental regulations to me. But I expect that cows will fly before DEQ ever does anything about it.

  45. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    Larry, you keep asserting things that you think I believe or think that I have said which I haven’t. To be clear, the foundation for the science I respect is based on principles set by Karl Popper and Richard Feynman. What is the foundation for the science that you claim to believe in?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Bill – I believe in the way that almost all science is conducted. The scientific method. I don’t believe in some science and not other.

      I believe the same folks who work with pandemics also are allied with the ones that do vaccines.

      I think the folks that do genetics – no matter the sub area – all conduct science similarily.

      Ditto with earth science – all areas.

      I do not put much stock in bloggers or even “smart” people with degrees if they are not actual scientists in the field.

      When it comes to real scientists that disagree – I go with the consensus… not the one or two who say all others have it wrong.

      1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
        Bill O’Keefe

        Well, a lot of what is called climate science, especially modeling does not conform to Popper or Feynman.
        Let’s just agree that you and I have very little in common in our view of environmental problems and call a halt to a non-productive back and forth.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          I don’t think Popper and Feynman can say that one science is done right and other not… They do not decide how science should be conducted. They have an opinion.

          We can agree to disagree but long-standing anti-pollution efforts in the US – are not exactly the same as climate science – done on a worldwide basis.

          My basic attitude is – that if you really dont know what will happen in the future – why take potentially death-dealing gambles?

          It’s the same logic I’d use in everyday life about taking chances. We all do but how many do we actually risk our lives on based on a best guess? That’s exactly how some folks do die. They guessed wrong and they had bet their life on that guess.

          1. Steve Haner Avatar
            Steve Haner

            Dissing Feynman is all the proof of your intelligence I need…..

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            The problem is you don’t need allegience to one person – no matter how famous or illustrious. Science is about a LOT of smart people with a LOT of different view points.

            When you guys latch on to one personality – and then reject other scientists – what does that mean about your “intelligence”?

            The Top 10 Consensus Climate-Change Scientists

            Wallace S. Broecker.
            James E. Hansen.
            Phil D. Jones.
            Syukuro Manabe.
            Michael E. Mann.
            John Francis Brake Mitchell.
            Veerabhadran Ramanathan.
            William F. Ruddiman.

            Do you believe these guys?

            or these?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

            neither Popper or Feynman seem to be on this list.

          3. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            You do not understand Popper and Feynman. They set standards for science to be judged by. For example, if an experiment does not confirm a hypothesis, the hypothesis must be rejected.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Bill,

            He’s not aware who Popper or Feynman are, or the fact that they are no longer with us.

          5. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            You are so right. I’m wasting time. Thank you.

  46. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    Larry, you keep asserting things that you think I believe or think that I have said which I haven’t. To be clear, the foundation for the science I respect is based on principles set by Karl Popper and Richard Feynman. What is the foundation for the science that you claim to believe in?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Bill – I believe in the way that almost all science is conducted. The scientific method. I don’t believe in some science and not other.

      I believe the same folks who work with pandemics also are allied with the ones that do vaccines.

      I think the folks that do genetics – no matter the sub area – all conduct science similarily.

      Ditto with earth science – all areas.

      I do not put much stock in bloggers or even “smart” people with degrees if they are not actual scientists in the field.

      When it comes to real scientists that disagree – I go with the consensus… not the one or two who say all others have it wrong.

      1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
        Bill O’Keefe

        Well, a lot of what is called climate science, especially modeling does not conform to Popper or Feynman.
        Let’s just agree that you and I have very little in common in our view of environmental problems and call a halt to a non-productive back and forth.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          I don’t think Popper and Feynman can say that one science is done right and other not… They do not decide how science should be conducted. They have an opinion.

          We can agree to disagree but long-standing anti-pollution efforts in the US – are not exactly the same as climate science – done on a worldwide basis.

          My basic attitude is – that if you really dont know what will happen in the future – why take potentially death-dealing gambles?

          It’s the same logic I’d use in everyday life about taking chances. We all do but how many do we actually risk our lives on based on a best guess? That’s exactly how some folks do die. They guessed wrong and they had bet their life on that guess.

          1. Steve Haner Avatar
            Steve Haner

            Dissing Feynman is all the proof of your intelligence I need…..

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            The problem is you don’t need allegience to one person – no matter how famous or illustrious. Science is about a LOT of smart people with a LOT of different view points.

            When you guys latch on to one personality – and then reject other scientists – what does that mean about your “intelligence”?

            The Top 10 Consensus Climate-Change Scientists

            Wallace S. Broecker.
            James E. Hansen.
            Phil D. Jones.
            Syukuro Manabe.
            Michael E. Mann.
            John Francis Brake Mitchell.
            Veerabhadran Ramanathan.
            William F. Ruddiman.

            Do you believe these guys?

            or these?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

            neither Popper or Feynman seem to be on this list.

          3. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            You do not understand Popper and Feynman. They set standards for science to be judged by. For example, if an experiment does not confirm a hypothesis, the hypothesis must be rejected.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Bill,

            He’s not aware who Popper or Feynman are, or the fact that they are no longer with us.

          5. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            You are so right. I’m wasting time. Thank you.

  47. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    re: ” You do not understand Popper and Feynman. They set standards for science to be judged by”

    I DO understand Bill. Science already has a method. Why should two guys dictate to all other scientists something the rest of them follow and support as a proper way to do science?

    You guys seem to want to find folks that stand outside the mainstream to latch on to – to believe – instead of the rest of science – the majority, the consensus.

    Why? Why do you reject consensus of the mainstream?

    All areas of science – not just Cimate – work that way . So why reject that approach for one parituclar area of science and adopt minority views?

    I provided an extensive list of mainstream consensus scientists on climate – do you reject all of them and choose these two instead?

  48. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    re: “no longer with us”.

    Indeed I am but it’s irrelevant really. The question is why subscribe to these two guys view of how science should be conducted and reject all others – alive and dead?

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      Oh I don’t know, maybe cause the one is a Nobel Prize Laureate in Physics?

      The other stating that any theory not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I do not subscribe to any one or even two scientists but rather the consensus of the majority.

        If the one or two are on to something, more and more mainstream will sign on to it and it will become the consensus.

        People who “like” what some smart guy says and it’s not what the majority of science is saying is fair game to ask why you disbleve the majority of science and latch on to those who have divergent views and especially so if you are trying to confirm your biases by “shopping”.

        1. Steve Haner Avatar
          Steve Haner

          You guys need to understand that you can’t fix stupid. I’ve stopped trying.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            I’m dumbfounded, I can fathom how someone would so strenuously object learning something.

          2. Reminds me of an old saying: “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It frustrates you and annoys the pig.”

            In this case, useless to argue with someone who can’t distinguish consensus of opinion from objective scientific facts.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Indeed. Climate Deniers “schooling” the scientists and the folks who believe in science. “Pigs” oh my.

        2. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          “I do not subscribe to any one or even two scientists but rather the consensus of the majority.”

          There is no such thing, hence your very limited understanding of science is clearly evident.

          Obviously you don’t know how Nobel Laurates are awarded by your comment.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            A Nobel Laurate on one research area does not make them an expert over a large number of other scientists in other areas , and some of them also Nobel Laurates.

            Good science is consensus science on a accumulating body of knowledge NOT what one guy believes no matter how “smart” he is or you think he is.

            You guys like Haner who want to latch on to one guy because you like the way he writes – and at the same time reject hundreds of other scientists – now THAT’s STUPID!

            You live in your own little world and rejct the majority of mainstream science. sorry.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            You really don’t learn by latching on to one guy and ignoring numerous others.

            That’s not “learning” – that’s hugging your own beliefs and rejecting the rest of science.

          3. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Argumentum ad populum

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            you switched to a new one?

            geeze…

            now the consensus of science is wrong because it’s popular?

            is that all you got?

          5. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Argument from incredulity

  49. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Here’s the deal.

    Most all scientists are “smart” people and many have awards for their accomplishments – but they don’t agree with each other because they like what the other guy says or has a persuasive argument.

    There is a process for replicating results – finding what can be , identifying what cannot at least yet, – a process.

    Why would ANYONE – read one guy who is “smart” and then reject all these other guys who have develoeped a consensus about collaborative research ?

    This is sorta like going to a Cancer doctor who tells you what you want to hear and rejecting the others because they not only gave you worse news but they concur with each other.

    Sometimes – it works that way – but bigger picture, longer term , it does not.

    The much larger body of mainstream science is not “popular belief”. It’s replicated research of many scientists over decades of work.

    We have folks who “believe” a “smart guy” with a degree or even a Nobel prize but almost zero experience with climate science – over dozens/hundreds who have PHDs in climate science and decades of work IN THAT FIELD but that one “smart guy with a degree” is who you want to believe?

    It makes no sense to me – to essentially unilaterally reject other science, in part, because it’s not what you believe or want to believe.

    Not a single word of the above is intended as a personal attack on anyone here.. it’s just a plain statement of opinion.

  50. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    re: ” You do not understand Popper and Feynman. They set standards for science to be judged by”

    I DO understand Bill. Science already has a method. Why should two guys dictate to all other scientists something the rest of them follow and support as a proper way to do science?

    You guys seem to want to find folks that stand outside the mainstream to latch on to – to believe – instead of the rest of science – the majority, the consensus.

    Why? Why do you reject consensus of the mainstream?

    All areas of science – not just Cimate – work that way . So why reject that approach for one parituclar area of science and adopt minority views?

    I provided an extensive list of mainstream consensus scientists on climate – do you reject all of them and choose these two instead?

  51. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    re: “no longer with us”.

    Indeed I am but it’s irrelevant really. The question is why subscribe to these two guys view of how science should be conducted and reject all others – alive and dead?

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      Oh I don’t know, maybe cause the one is a Nobel Prize Laureate in Physics?

      The other stating that any theory not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I do not subscribe to any one or even two scientists but rather the consensus of the majority.

        If the one or two are on to something, more and more mainstream will sign on to it and it will become the consensus.

        People who “like” what some smart guy says and it’s not what the majority of science is saying is fair game to ask why you disbleve the majority of science and latch on to those who have divergent views and especially so if you are trying to confirm your biases by “shopping”.

        1. Steve Haner Avatar
          Steve Haner

          You guys need to understand that you can’t fix stupid. I’ve stopped trying.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            I’m dumbfounded, I can fathom how someone would so strenuously object learning something.

          2. Reminds me of an old saying: “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It frustrates you and annoys the pig.”

            In this case, useless to argue with someone who can’t distinguish consensus of opinion from objective scientific facts.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Indeed. Climate Deniers “schooling” the scientists and the folks who believe in science. “Pigs” oh my.

        2. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          “I do not subscribe to any one or even two scientists but rather the consensus of the majority.”

          There is no such thing, hence your very limited understanding of science is clearly evident.

          Obviously you don’t know how Nobel Laurates are awarded by your comment.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            A Nobel Laurate on one research area does not make them an expert over a large number of other scientists in other areas , and some of them also Nobel Laurates.

            Good science is consensus science on a accumulating body of knowledge NOT what one guy believes no matter how “smart” he is or you think he is.

            You guys like Haner who want to latch on to one guy because you like the way he writes – and at the same time reject hundreds of other scientists – now THAT’s STUPID!

            You live in your own little world and rejct the majority of mainstream science. sorry.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            You really don’t learn by latching on to one guy and ignoring numerous others.

            That’s not “learning” – that’s hugging your own beliefs and rejecting the rest of science.

          3. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Argumentum ad populum

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            you switched to a new one?

            geeze…

            now the consensus of science is wrong because it’s popular?

            is that all you got?

          5. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Argument from incredulity

  52. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Here’s the deal.

    Most all scientists are “smart” people and many have awards for their accomplishments – but they don’t agree with each other because they like what the other guy says or has a persuasive argument.

    There is a process for replicating results – finding what can be , identifying what cannot at least yet, – a process.

    Why would ANYONE – read one guy who is “smart” and then reject all these other guys who have develoeped a consensus about collaborative research ?

    This is sorta like going to a Cancer doctor who tells you what you want to hear and rejecting the others because they not only gave you worse news but they concur with each other.

    Sometimes – it works that way – but bigger picture, longer term , it does not.

    The much larger body of mainstream science is not “popular belief”. It’s replicated research of many scientists over decades of work.

    We have folks who “believe” a “smart guy” with a degree or even a Nobel prize but almost zero experience with climate science – over dozens/hundreds who have PHDs in climate science and decades of work IN THAT FIELD but that one “smart guy with a degree” is who you want to believe?

    It makes no sense to me – to essentially unilaterally reject other science, in part, because it’s not what you believe or want to believe.

    Not a single word of the above is intended as a personal attack on anyone here.. it’s just a plain statement of opinion.

Leave a Reply