Share this comment
If the author had bothered to carefully look at the “data” prior to starting this crazy journey, she would realize that the planet will warm about 1.5 Celsius in the next century, and we will adapt and be fine. See Lomborg, Shellenberger, Koonin, etc. Climate activism doesn’t have a “cult” problem, it is a problem all by itself.
If the author had bothered to carefully look at the “data” prior to starting this crazy journey, she would realize that the planet will warm about 1.5 Celsius in the next century, and we will adapt and be fine. See Lomborg, Shellenberger, Koonin, etc. Climate activism doesn’t have a “cult” problem, it is a problem all by itself.
The problem really isn’t the rate of global warming, or the cause of this instance of global warming compared to the causes of prior instances of global warming. The problem, for any species at any moment, is how to adapt successfully to deal with whatever is coming at you. Current examples of more or less maladaptive responses to the current episode of global warming which has been happening for a few hundred years now, but is accelerating in the last 10 or 20 or 50 years, depending on which set of data you look at-
1. more or less Islamic nomadic herders at the Southern edge of the Sahara are seeking grazing for their herds further and further south, as the traditional pastures at the Northern edge of their ranges fail. The results in conflict with the more or less sedentary, more or less Christian farming groups in areas that still get adequate rainfall. One seldom sees these clashes of culture and religion interpreted as one result of climate change, but that is what it is, isn’t’t it? 2. the escalating competition for African hearts, minds and resources between the the Chinese state and multinational corporations with close ties to Russian, and more belatedly, the Biden administration, playing catch after Trump ceded the playing field there to his friends, is also driven by shifting consumer needs as technology attempts to figure out how to profit from the changing conditions. 3. The war for the rich wheat fields and always open ports of Ukraine, couched in terms of Putin seeking to return to the old and better times, or questions of political ideas like Ukraine’s right to self determination, and self- governance, obscures the fact that Russian has been exporting a greater percentage of it’s wheat crop ever since the early 70’s. As oil revenues continue to fall, Russia needs some other major exports as a source of revenue. But wheat and other agricultural products are more susceptible to the vagaries of the weather, hence the perceived need to control a greater share of production.
Being in my mid-50s I'm barely old enough to remember the climate alarmism of the 1970s. Except back then we were headed for the next ice age and we were all going to freeze to death. Then it became global warming and when that didn't pan out they just changed it to the generic climate change. It's all just a scam to get power and money for those pushing this non-scientific garbage. And to make people with some privilege feel better about themselves.
Adaptation, yes.
Thank you for pointing out the basic problem in all of this. So called climate change is a myth
Climate change is normal and unstoppable, panic and the belief that it can be stopped from changing is the myth.
but it is a huge money making myth
For sure!! My thoughts as well.
And Patrick Moore.
“Will warm”? LOL! It has “warmed” 1 Celsius over the last 150 years, most of which had no emission controls whatsoever, even for particulates and noxious gases. Please don’t spread such baseless projections even though you’re right about adapting.
The Little Ice Age ended at about the time of the American Revolution and we have experienced warming ever since. However the most accurate land based system, established by NOAA ins 2005, otherwise known by the acronym USCRN, has reflected no warming trend in the continental USA since that time. Longer time series in Japan show no warming at all.
The earth's climate has warmed and cooled repeatedly since it was created.
The earth has had FIVE major ice ages. We are currently coming out of the last one and into the next warming period which STARTED about 11k years ago. During this time, we have had multiple micro ice ages. The earth will very very likely see ANOTHER ice age at some point.
This is never, ever, going to stop unless the earth's core goes cold. In the meantime, we can worry about super volcanoes and comets that have both at various times thrown the climate into chaos. Whether it is these or another ice age, you can be sure that the climate and the various environments, land and ocean, will be dramatically impacted and we are not powerful enough to change that.
All we can do is hope to adapt well enough to survive as a species.
“we are not powerful enough to change that.”
We are not powerful enough to change anything. Much of this climate nonsense is misplaced ego and guilt. Earth is gonna earth. We’re along for the ride. Lucky we’re adaptable!
It also cooled and warmed long before the Industrial age. Change happens. It’s not a catastrophe when it does.
It started warming after the end of a mini ice age in the early to mid 1800’s. The mini ice age lasted about 50 years and for most of the period the winters were so severe that the Thames froze over and winter fairs were held on the ice. We are about to enter another solar minimum which will last until 2053, so we may well be in for another mini ice age.
The 1.5 number is based on the recent IPCC projection, which is verified by the authors I cited. They also confirm a similar 1.5 rise over the last 100 years, as you note. You may disagree with the assessment, but calling it “baseless” imposes the same nonsense which you thrust on the other side.
There are issues with their methods, for example temp sensors placement near large cities that cause urbanization-induced bias (heat islands). Basically most of the climate change hysteria is a lie (in my opinion).
Yes, a "projection." Based on models. That use many assumptions. As the old saying goes about models - garbage in, garbage out. A particularly egregious modeler was Michael Mann of Penn State. Who has been unmasked as a fraud whenever his "proof" is put to the test.
"Let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline."
I find it interesting that the threshold was suddenly lowered from 2 degrees to 1.5 degrees. I think we’re at about 1.3 degrees now so lowering the threshold makes doom look that much more imminent.
It used to be three degrees C.
🤦♂️ Sheesh it’s been warming for centuries. It’s what happens It warms. It cools. It warms. It cools
Doesn't the Earth alternate between glacial periods and warm periods?
(During the last glacial, East Asians came to North Americas....the people we call "indigenous")
I'm not sure about the "alternating." There have been at least 4 ice ages for North America. However, the continents drift so they haven't been in their current locations from the beginning. Depending on where they are on the Earth's surface has a vast effect on the climate affecting them. I have enjoyed Voyage of the Continents which I watched on Prime Video. I highly recommend it. The documentary on Australia was also instructive. Australia has had varying climate situations acting on it. Its coastline, as an example, has extended and receded several times due to climate changes. It's not static and there is no way any human population could prevent, or cause, the changes.
Yes. I haven't seen that video but I've been following this topic since the seventies. It does seem like the frequency of ice ages suddenly increased after the South American tectonic plate moved up and rear-ended North America, there by cutting off flow of water from the Pacific to Atlantic oceans. A number of ocean currents now operate as a result and their complex interactions very likely control the macro climate to an extent the global warming cult can't begin to imagine.
Yes. The Gulf Stream is a prime example. It is a major weather maker as well as moving heat from the Equator to the the northern latitudes.
These environmental morons have no clue as to complex systems. One large volcanic eruption would have a massive impact on global climate. Ask any of these morons how exactly Man has any influence on that or how they would deal with the aftermath of a major volcanic event.
There have been a number of ice ages; the most recent one ended about 11 thousand years ago. The first five waves of immigrants to the Americas seem now to have started coming across the land bridge from Siberia to Alaska more than han 18 thousand years ago, while the seas were still much lower but the ice was opening up in places. There was another "mini ice age" that only lasted a few hundred years between the 12th and 16th centuries. Froze out the Viking colony in Greenland so that they pulled back to Iceland; otherwise they would probably been the next wave to enter the Americas, and the first with steel technology, rather than the Europeans that did.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation
This is what happens at the end of coming out of an ice age. It's been much hotter than now in the past. And there has been a lot more CO2 in the past. Plants love these conditions. An other ice age would be the real existential threat. I read the other day that even now, many more people die of cold every year than heat. An order of magnitude more.
That’s why the climate cult had to change their dogma from climate warming to climate change.
And then to climate disruption.
It goes globalwarmingclimatechangeclimatedisruption. Weather.
Yes, it's been warming since the last ice age. Where the Empire State Building lay under the ice. So warming isn't a bad thing and who can say what is the ideal temperature, until this latest inter-glacial period begins to wane.
No one seems to have learned about the Little Ice Age that hit Europe particularly hard around 1250 and lasted about 150 years.
And what about the series of Ice Ages across the northern hemisphere? The last one ended about 10,000 years ago and it's been warming ever since.
The climate cultists are nothing but arrogant preening fools.
You need to understand it’s not about knowing - it’s about using climate change as the premise to attack our energy industry on the way to transforming our society.
Hi Naomi, During the time Europe was experiencing low temps, the western half of North America was experiencing a period of warming temperatures and long term drought. This caused the abandonment of the Chaco canyon complexes in 1100 AD, and the abandonment of the Mesa Verde complexes in the 1300’s, although a complete loss of that civilization’s organization. Sorry I don’t have specific references- the tracking of moisture and temperature I read about in a PNAS survey of temperature changes in the South west over the last 1500 years- I just Googled it, so you could find it too. The concern really isn’t the variability of broad climate patterns, as is the rate of change of climate patterns and the ability of biological and social systems to adapt successfully to the changes as they happen. Currently the drought in the Western United States is bad, again, but the pressure point is not going to be local agricultural impacts. The pressure point is going to be the loss of the water from the Colorado River which has been diverted to California. Los Angeles will not be sustainable at it’s current population when the Colorado River doesn’t have enough water flow to provide Los Angeles with water.
I lived in Durango. I took many people to Mesa Verde every group leader there said they have no idea why it was abandoned. but agree about the water
Once the water dries up maybe Los Angeles and Southern California will finally get serious about nuclear powered desalination and leave the Colorado River for Colorado, Arizona and Nevada. With nuclear energy anywhere is sustainable although it helps to be near an ocean.
And Southern Utah.
We can dream, at least.
The problem with California (well, the one relevant here; CA seems now to be one infinite set of problems) is they have for decades refused to build any water infrastructure despite the obvious problem of water supply vs demand. No reservoirs, no aqueducts, no desalination, no pipes, no nothing. Nada. So almost all that rushing water they just endured just flowed on out to sea. Oops.
The "environmentalists" - the same brilliant people pushing to cover the entire surface of the earth with solar panels and wind turbines - have completely captured CA policy, so any proposal for any of the above is a dead end.
The public/voters, as the saying goes, know exactly what they want and deserve to get it - good and hard.
Forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown.
The reality is California is alike a parasite to the surrounding states.
I am glad you raised this point. Is this not a reason why it is unwise to throw open the border to millions of newcomers?
It is not. False “sustainability” is the problem, along with rejection of natural gas, nuclear power and desalination not the number of people.
The drought in the west is over, water flows into the southwest reservoirs was not greatly reduced, only outpaced by demand. More a fault of man, than a change in climate.
Even the recent flooding here in California has more to do with developing flood plains than climate change. Flood plains will flood. If you notice, the flooding always seems to occur on streets with names such as Creek Side, and River View.
The real environmental problem is that 1/3rd of all energy used in California is used to pump water to the Las Angeles area.
Thank you for adding to my knowledge. The climate has been in flux since the beginning of time. The continents drift, weather and temperature are affected by sun activity such as sun spots and flares.
Considering the climate fluctuations that caused drought in the Northern American hemisphere and at the same time extremely cold weather in Europe, there is no way humans can be blamed for any of it. Would you say the total human population of the Earth in 1100 AD was possibly 5 million or fewer? Certainly the internal combustion engine didn't exist. Wood and peat were the primary fuel sources for cooking and heat but couldn't have had much impact on global climate.
The North American continent did, in 1100 AD, have vast herds of buffalo. Maybe it buffalo flatulence that caused all that climate change. Hmmm?
I agree with the water situation in the Western US. California is like a cancer on the country, and particularly the western part. It sucks and sucks and sucks up resources. Check out Idaho. The rural areas there are being subjected to huge wind turbines which are killing their birds and destroying the land. The electricity will be going to California. (Tucker Carlson did a segment on this last week). Then there is the upper East coast of the US. They are putting these hideous turbines out in the ocean off New England. The blasting surveys in the ocean are decimating the whales. Whales are washing up on New England beaches in droves.
Isn't that what precession is and does?
An ice age is whenever there is presistent ice at the poles. Technically, we are still in an ice age and are very slowly emerging.
Facts to “climate change” is as water to the Wicked Witch of the West.
BTW “warm” is a LOT less destructive then “cold”. This area was buried under a mile of ice in the past. Try living in that.
BUT WE WILL BE ALL HOT AND SWEATY!!!
Thanks for the epiphany - am now taking my money out of ESG funds and investing in deodorant manufacturers…
✅
Greetings from Florida!
Like that's a bad thing.....