Global warming: time to rein back on doom and gloom?
From a global warming advocate: Global warming: time to rein back on doom and gloom?
Prediction, as they say, is tough, especially when it’s about the future – and that’s especially true when it comes to the climate, whose complexity we only partially understand. It is, as we all know, naturally immensely variable. And the effect of human intervention is subject to long timelags: it will be decades, even centuries, before the full consequences of today’s emissions of carbon dioxide become clear.
As a result, scientists and policymakers draw on the past to predict the future. Until now, they have therefore placed much weight on the rapid temperature increases in the Eighties and Nineties. But for at least a decade, these have dramatically slowed, even as carbon dioxide emissions have continued to increase. [emphasis mine]
Or as I like to say, every climate model proposed by every global warming scientist has been proven wrong. They all predicted the climate would warm in lockstep with the increase in CO2. It hasn’t.
This is not to say the climate hasn’t warmed in the past five centuries (though some of the data used in for the past 150 years is sadly suspect). What isn’t clear is why. It might be the rise in carbon dioxide. It might also simply be the lingering warming the Earth is experiencing as the last ice age ends. Or it might be because of the Sun.
The field of climate science is very complex, confusing, and in its infancy. We just don’t know yet, and anyone who says they do is not a good scientist.
The support of my readers through the years has given me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Four years ago, just before the 2020 election I wrote that Joe Biden's mental health was suspect. Only in this year has the propaganda mainstream media decided to recognize that basic fact.
Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Even today NASA and Congress refuse to recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are five ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation:
5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.
From a global warming advocate: Global warming: time to rein back on doom and gloom?
Prediction, as they say, is tough, especially when it’s about the future – and that’s especially true when it comes to the climate, whose complexity we only partially understand. It is, as we all know, naturally immensely variable. And the effect of human intervention is subject to long timelags: it will be decades, even centuries, before the full consequences of today’s emissions of carbon dioxide become clear.
As a result, scientists and policymakers draw on the past to predict the future. Until now, they have therefore placed much weight on the rapid temperature increases in the Eighties and Nineties. But for at least a decade, these have dramatically slowed, even as carbon dioxide emissions have continued to increase. [emphasis mine]
Or as I like to say, every climate model proposed by every global warming scientist has been proven wrong. They all predicted the climate would warm in lockstep with the increase in CO2. It hasn’t.
This is not to say the climate hasn’t warmed in the past five centuries (though some of the data used in for the past 150 years is sadly suspect). What isn’t clear is why. It might be the rise in carbon dioxide. It might also simply be the lingering warming the Earth is experiencing as the last ice age ends. Or it might be because of the Sun.
The field of climate science is very complex, confusing, and in its infancy. We just don’t know yet, and anyone who says they do is not a good scientist.
The support of my readers through the years has given me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Four years ago, just before the 2020 election I wrote that Joe Biden's mental health was suspect. Only in this year has the propaganda mainstream media decided to recognize that basic fact.
Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Even today NASA and Congress refuse to recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are five ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation:
5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.
If you notice its no longer described as “anthropomorphic climate change” that was abandoned with the revelation that data had been purposefully massaged to fit models, and all models are inaccurate, now its just “climate change”. These are subtle differences in how these topics are talked about by politicians and media talking heads that are true believers. The question remains: What is it that they are true believers in?
Sir, theres an iceberg, straight ahead!
Thats not an iceberg! I dont think it is…
Im not really sure…
Maybe its just an overly large ice cube…
… which the atmosphere is somehow refracting to make it seem bigger.
It could be a big white duck sitting in a puddle on the deck…
at just the right angle that it appears to be an iceberg
or maybe its just a hallucination….
After all I did not sleep well last night.
Its all so complicated.
But whatever it is,at least its not moving.
Since I have so much time,
I think I will have someone conduct a leisurely study of it.
In the meantime, full steam ahead!
I saw a video of a woman being interviewed about the ice in the Antarctic. The video showed ice bergs, and she was emotionally talking about the potential of these particular ice bergs that the earth created possibly melting as if they were “dieing”, a part of the earth was dieing.
I thought it was a joke, but it was not a joke, she was serious.
What the Press and Clergy won’t tell you is….
http://firsttrumpetinrevelation.com/
The warming alarmists are wrong to think that CO2 is causing global warming. Not even close. Surface temperatures correlate better with the rise in the consumption of cheese. You got that right…cheese!
Check out the graph for yourself:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wKIial6wap0/Sdy_pScnPPI/AAAAAAAAAEQ/HismtRqnh1k/s400/Cheese+Consump.JPG
If cheese consumption is going up and surface temperatures are going up, then cheese consumption MUST cause global warming!
That’s a good one, John. Mann’s infamous hockey stick also correlates positively with my waistline.
You are placing a value judgment on the use of the term iceberg. We already know a lot about icebergs and we don’t know much about how our climate operates. It isn’t a very good analogy.
A better one might be dark matter, something that is all around us and has significant effects on the universe but something we know almost nothing about. Should we all freak out?
Don’t tell that to alarmists, they already hate cows as it is and will just use this as one more reason to advocate for their elimination as a food source.
We know almost nothing about dark matter since we’ve only just begun to study . We’ve beens studying the climate nearly since science began, hundreds of years ago. Here is a timeline that ONLY covers the discovery of global warming, from the American Institute of Physics. You might notice the earliest date is 1824.
http://aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
Thomas, while people have been studying the climate for a century or two, it was in the mid-late 1970s when its study really began to get more money. Till then it was highly disjoint, compared to say, Organic Chemistry, and no one tried to organize things, …till then. In order to make plausible simulations, the denizens of the newly named “climate science” community needed data from all over the world.
Their problem was they could not get significant portions of that data for the full range of the scientific process, …in particular the part of it known as ‘replication’. This was because certain members of “the socialist camp” refused to allow their data to become public. The data would have shown that bad weather was *not* the cause of the famines that swept through their countries, which left their government’s control of seed and food distribution as the major cause. The embarrassment could have been fatal *before* 1991.
Some climate science types refused to accept sequestering the data. They did not get the data, and subsequently lost out in funding, because they admitted they could not do the desired simulations. Others caved, took the data, under the sequestration agreements, and got the money, because they *could* do plausible simulations with the datasets, even though they refused both data and algorithms to fellow scientists. I was told this at the time, and replied that I thought the field could mature and get the data freed. Not even the changes after 1991 did that, until the issue was forced, however. Well, …I have truly great experience at being wrong!
So, the great bulk of people who have ever worked on climate science have done so in the last 35 years, using data sets they did not have full access to. That has come back to haunt them, because their models don’t match data in the last 15 years. They would not admit that you cannot do real science with sequestered data. You can go through the motions with most of the scientific method, but full replication using the original data is the proper core of the scientific method, …no matter how much people try to substitute “peer review” for it.
Without replication, their models could not be corrected, and have not improved enough in the last 15 years to matter. Now that they are finally allowing the data to be free, ..or that data which they do not claim was “lost”, …climate science can begin the long slow process of replication and improvement. Unfortunately, it will take generations before they are trusted again by the rest of society. How long? Well, when a country changes policy to confiscate the assets of investors for X years, …and, realizing the source of their growing poverty, repent and switch back, many investors will wait a second X years before investing again. It is very probable we will see at least that much skepticism of climate science over the next 35 years, and we may well suffer for it, …but that skepticism is all too human, and at least partly reasonable. The problem was discarding that inconvenient replication, and saying “trust us” for far too long.
The idea that Dalton’s data on early 19th century weather in Great Britain will affect this “original sin” in modern climate science, is ridiculous.