The alarmists’ attitude towards climate change will prove more harmful than beneficial in the long run.
Earth Day this year focused officially on the need to reduce plastic litter, a worthy and achievable goal. Nonetheless, much Earth Day activity concentrated on the alleged need to save the planet from climate change.
Climate-change alarmists have long called the current warming period “unprecedented” and “dangerous.” But is it?
Ironically, this Earth Day fell in the midst of one of the coldest Aprils in North American history. The severe winter of 2017–2018 has raised debates from two contrasting ends.
While some uninformed people claim it disproves global warming, climate alarmists claim it is just another evidence for global warming.
Deniers, Alarmists and Skeptics
Actual climate-change deniers—and they are very few—categorically deny the warming trend. On the other end of the spectrum are climate-change alarmists, who claim that the current warming trend is catastrophic and driven almost exclusively by emission of carbon dioxide from human activities, especially industrialization.
Skeptics Are Not Deniers
Scientific progress depends on the freedom to challenge existing hypotheses. Surprisingly, though, anyone who disagrees with climate-change alarmists is branded a “denier.”
That is very misleading. Most well-known skeptics disagree on the magnitude and cause of warming, but not on whether it’s happening; and they also disagree about the consequences of warming and about mankind should respond.
Real climate-change deniers should be called out. They are as dangerous as climate-change alarmists, who impede scientific advancement and lead the masses into believing extreme theories using scare tactics.
Both climate-change deniers and climate-change alarmists are wrong on their claims about the implications of this winter and how they interpret the behaviour of the earth’s climatic system over the past 2000 years. Here are four reasons why:
Four major temperature data sets are available to us: historical data inferred from proxy temperature measurements (primarily tree-rings and ice cores), global mean surface temperature data from thermometers (measured since the 1880s), radiosonde (weather balloon) temperature measurements (first used in 1896 but not common until the 1950s), and temperature data gathered by satellites (since the 1970s).
Temperature measurements from these sources indicate that the earth has, with fluctuations, generally been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age (roughly 1350–1850).
Skeptics differ from alarmists on the primary cause for this warming (a subject to which I’ll return below), its magnitude, the supposed dangers it might bring, and how to respond.
Climate data from the past contradict the alarmist’s claims that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity have been the primary drivers of global temperatures.
Data show that the current warming is not unprecedented but was matched by the Roman Warm Period (roughly 250–400) and Medieval Warm Period (roughly 950–1250).
During those periods, carbon dioxide emissions from human activity were negligible compared to today’s levels. It follows that warming of the magnitude of the last 150 years or more can happen with or without human contribution.
Further, no conclusive evidence shows that the current warming has been exaggerated by human emissions.
Climate alarmists, relying on computer climate models, predicted that the earth’s temperature would increase rapidly (typical predictions calling for about 0.3ºC of warming per decade) over the past two decades. Their forecasts proved to be wrong. Global average temperature failed to rise significantly during the past 18 years, despite a record increase in carbon dioxide emissions, and its average rate since the end of the 1970s has been only about half what the models simulate.
In other words, the models exaggerate the impact of human carbon dioxide emissions on the temperature.
This pivotal failure in scientific understanding (of how carbon dioxide influences temperature) was acknowledged by even the staunchest climate alarmists.
This was more recently confirmed by hundreds of scientific papers that attribute the recent warming to natural causes and affirm that there is nothing abnormal with the climate.
An increasing number of record highs does not prove or disprove catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. They are merely changes in temperature within a larger climatic period.
It’s no surprise that local record highs become more common during a warming period. The mercury has been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age, so it is nearly inevitable that new records will be set each year. The records are indeed one evidence of warming, but they’re no evidence of its cause.
More importantly, the record highs apply only to the modern measurement era, after widespread temperature measurements began in the 1870s for much of the developed world and not until the mid-1900s for much of the rest of the world. They don’t include the similar phases of steep temperature increases that would have occurred during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period.
The alarmists’ attitude towards climate change will prove more harmful than beneficial in the long run. Insofar as they prevail, we will become more and more unprepared to face any climatic condition that is contrary to their dubious theories of unprecedented warming.
Moreover, their demonizing of skeptics impedes our understanding of the climatic system by disrupting the critical thinking indispensable to the progress of scientific knowledge.
The current winter does not disprove global warming. But it does disprove the alarmist narrative.
Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, lives in Coimbatore, India.
Do you really believe that Russian temperature records from, say, 1917-1950 are reliable?
You don’t really expect a sentient, rational person to believe that people were making accurate daily observations all over Russia during the Revolution or the Civil War or during the Sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad?
Do you honestly believe that Chinese temperature records from, say, 1913-1980 are reliable?
Do you really expect anybody to believe that accurate daily temperatures were recorded in China during the Revolution or “The Great Leap Forward?”
Do you seriously believe that Sub-Saharan African temperatures from, say 1850-1975 are accurate?
Please don’t tell us you think accurate daily temperature recordings were made in Sub-Saharan Africa during any part of the 19th century and most of the 20th.
Do you really believe that oceanic temperatures from, say 1800-1970 are accurate? ( as we know, the oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface).
Do you really believe there were accurate daily temperature observations made in the Bering Sea or the Weddell Sea or in the middle of the Pacific at any time before the advent of satellite observations in 1979?
Are you kidding me?
All this is even prior to considering the GISS homogenization adjustments or the adjustments made for the UHI effect.
These are measurement error and uncertainties in excess of the putative change in global temperatures.
The truth of the matter is that climate “science” really doesn’t know whether there has been statistically significant global warming or not.
[…] Why alarmists are wrong on climate apocalypse […]
Few contest that the USA was hotter in the 1930s than now.
And many skeptics contend that the USA temperature measurements from the ’30s are actually a better gauge of global temps than the sparse & less reliable global measurements from the time. True, there’s wide agreement that we’ve warmed since the Little Ice Age ended, but if we’re cooler now than the 1930s I don’t see how one can conclude we’re in a warming trend.
And there’s no reason to just give that point away to the liberals. Argue with them about whether we’re warming, because I don’t think we are. Or if so it’s so minimal it’s barely distinguishable from noise.
If the producers of the global temperature anomaly products “create” at least part of the warming trend, they can then confidently conclude that there is a warming trend.
https://www.therightinsight.org/Natural-vs-Unnatural-Temperature-Change
…and, that the warming trend is at least partially anthropogenic. 😉
There are fewer record highs now that in the 1930-40s. More importantly, there are fewer periods with high temps than historic.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/04/plummeting-summer-temperatures-in-the-us/
[…] The article was originally published on Master Resource. […]
You say “Actual climate-change deniers—and they are very few—categorically deny the warming trend.”
I’m not so sure.
If you manage to raise the issue with many academic physicists you will find they don’t want to discuss the topic UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
There is a good chance that many of them think either you can’t forecast the weather or climate (ask a mathematician) or that the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) Theory can’t be explained by the laws of thermodynamics – and is therefore wrong.
Of course it doesn’t help the GHE cannot be demonstrated in a lab, and no other instances of it exist in the real world – where you would expect many.
The majority of non-involved academic scientists see it as a unwinnable political issue – so why would they put their careers at risk for a fight which they think will come to an end by other means anyway?
[…] So, there is nothing alarming about this year’s Monsoon. As in previous years, it continues to shatter the myth of Indian droughts driven by climate change. […]
[…] is shocking news to climate alarmists. They can no longer blindly blame climate change and carbon dioxide emissions for Africa’s—or the rest of the […]
[…] the scientific perspective against exaggerated dangers of climate change in several of my recent articles. Here I would like to bring to light the reality of climate change at grassroot levels, without the […]
[…] the scientific perspective against exaggerated dangers of climate change in several of my recent articles. Here I would like to bring to light the reality of climate change at grassroot levels, without the […]
[…] So, there is nothing alarming about this year’s Monsoon. As in previous years, it continues to shatter the myth of Indian droughts driven by climate change. […]
[…] The arson-caused wildfire and the destruction it caused in Greece are unfortunate events. The loss of life is tragic. However, it should not be politicized to spread fake news about climate change. […]
[…] Water crisis is another major issue in tropical countries of Africa and Asia. The climate alarmists unsuccessfully tried to attribute the existing water-crisis to manmade climate change despite no conclusive evidence. […]
[…] of scientific information and open declarations about persecuting those who differ from their false narrative, those who suffer from GTPS will cause permanent and lasting damage to the field of climate science […]
[…] of scientific information and open declarations about persecuting those who differ from their false narrative, those who suffer from GTPS will cause permanent and lasting damage to the field of climate science […]
[…] this biased single-dimensional false narrative, the climate alarmists have made sure that the actual observed agricultural benefits of climate […]
[…] on these established facts, it is pretty conclusive that (1) humans are not the primary drivers of the current warming; (2) […]
[…] Why do climate alarmists’ predictions fail? Because they wrongly assume that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is the control knob for global temperature. Yet their models, based on that assumption, predict two to three times the warming observed. […]
[…] is real and immediate. By shutting down the largest energy source, coal, on the basis of erroneous scientific predictions about global temperature, and adopting energy systems that fail regularly, the world will face […]
[…] record lows do not warrant us reason to deny long-term warming, they do invalidate climate alarmist’s claims of a rapid catastrophic warming that is nowhere to be seen. The alarmists forecasted higher than normal temperatures during the […]
[…] global temperature has failed to increase in tandem with CO2 levels. Computer climate models gave false predictions for the past two decades. They have no credibility for predicting the […]
[…] But most of their global temperature predictions—used to justify the taxes—have failed miserably in the past two […]
[…] proposals. However most of their world temperature predictions—used to justify the taxes—have failed miserably prior to now 20 […]
[…] climate summit, just ended in Katowice, Poland, issued the standard propaganda, amplifying the existing doomsday narrative and issuing strategies to save the ill-advised Paris climate agreement—complete implementation of […]
That 18 year study was addressed and torn apart here: https://youtu.be/ZCSnKNoyWtw
Using 18 years (as opposed to a round number like 10, 15, 20, etc) is immediately suspicious. The fact is that the 18 year period was selected to have a particularly warm first few years to offset the rest of the years, so that the temperature trend line was not increasing over the study period. Terrible statistics (or great statistics if you’re trying to deny climate change).
Here’s a website from a somewhat reputable organization (NASA) with graphs using a bit longer period (1800 to now) clearly showing a warming trend:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp
Thanks Matthew. The latest satellite/balloon data, which is precise and global versus land-based measurements, continues to show low warming (“global lukewarming’). http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2018-0-25-deg-c/?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=f4c0367f7a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_01_03_12_24&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-f4c0367f7a-20173381
This is what Senator Cruz was referring to then (and now). Surface measurements are plagued by biases such as the urban heat island effect and ocean estimated approximations. Joe Romm thought the airborne measurements confirmed high sensitivity models but seemed to have jumped the gun (https://www.masterresource.org/romm-joseph-climate-progress/romm-uah-temperature-update/)
[…] by little, natural changes in our climatic system are unveiling the bias of alarmists and helping people recover from the climate hysteria of the past three […]
[…] despite the rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. This is inconvenient because it contradicts the claims made by the climate doomsday theorists. Besides, it also exposed the false forecasts of the faulty computer climate models used by a […]
[…] despite the rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. This is inconvenient because it contradicts the claims made by the climate doomsday theorists. Besides, it also exposed the false forecasts of the faulty computer climate models used by a […]
[…] by little, natural changes in our climatic system are unveiling the bias of alarmists and helping people recover from the climate hysteria of the past three […]
[…] idea that “skeptics are deniers” is nonsense. It flies in the face of science. As the sociologist Robert K. Merton wrote 80 […]
[…] is important to remember that the current cold phase (2018–2019) contradicts the climate doomsday theory, which had originally predicted milder winters. It also contrasts with claims of global […]
[…] is important to remember that the current cold phase (2018–2019) contradicts the climate doomsday theory, which had originally predicted milder winters. It also contrasts with claims of global […]
[…] idea that “skeptics are deniers” is nonsense. It flies in the face of science. As the sociologist Robert K. Merton wrote 80 […]
[…] forecasts provide no basis for believing in the alleged theory that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are causing a dangerous increase […]
[…] Why do climate alarmists’ predictions fail? Because they wrongly assume that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is the control knob for global temperature. Yet their models, based on that assumption, predict two to three times the warming observed. […]
[…] method of verifying, or falsifying, warming claims by observational data. Unfortunately, the data manipulators have struck at the very heart of scientific methodology, in their desperation to portray outcomes supporting extreme […]
[…] And just like that, our mainstream media pop culture has transitioned form fears of population growth to fears of climate change. […]
¢arbon tax…follow the $…
The fact remains that fossil fuel supplies are limited, anyway. It only makes sense to start transferring to alternative energy as soon as possible. The truth is that we simply don’t have enough information to predict global warming exactly, so better safe than sorry. With that said, extreme predictions of imminent human extinction are counter productive, because they result either in ridicule or despair. Some individuals are even posting comments in which they look forward to human extinction, because they think it will help other animals–mostly vegans. Hysteria and panic in the face of a threat is never an effective strategy for success.
[…] And just like that, our mainstream media pop culture has transitioned form fears of population growth to fears of climate change. […]
[…] have rightly exerted caution on this matter by staying neutral. Among Christians, there are both alarmists and skeptics. A few are determined to make the church join the doomsday cult movement, […]
[…] have rightly exerted caution on this matter by staying neutral. Among Christians, there are both alarmists and skeptics. A few are determined to make the church join the doomsday cult movement, […]
[…] have rightly exerted caution on this matter by staying neutral. Among Christians, there are both alarmists and skeptics. A few are determined to make the church join the doomsday cult movement, […]
Humanity will be wiped out by a meteor, gamma ray burst, solar flare, or super volcano eruption LONG before anything we could possibly do to the planet. Much of the scientific community greedily hopped on board the man caused global warming train due to all the research grants Obama was throwing around even with the unspoken requirement that if you want any future grants…. *wink wink*. I personally know two researchers who were blacklisted for not keeping with the narrative, and i’m sure there were plenty more out there.
This isn’t some conspiracy theory. The alarmists push back hard against anyone who doesn’t agree because they have an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with science or planetary warming. To claim many of them are being fooled or used as pawns is an insult to them, and rightly so. It took a lot of hard work to get to where they’re at. That being the case, much of the alarmists are for lack of a better term, traitors to science and their professions. They’ve sold their souls and reputations in order to radically transform the world economy into something completely different.
Their goal? To get rid of capitalism in exchange for an authoritarian socialist system with them in control. Don’t believe me? Here are the words of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s chief of staff just this past week….
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,”
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,”
“It would also, according to its proponents, advance “social, economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative and public ownership.”
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a climate denier in the slightest. It’s quite evident that its more than likely been warming since the last ice age. From the data that i’ve looked at, I don’t think its caused by man though. One thing that really made me skeptical of the BS being pushed by alarmists is how they’ve been caught on multiple occasions altering the historical temperature data, and those alterations ALWAYS are in the direction which makes any temperature increase appear more than it was.
[…] and scientists. Regardless of differences in nationality, ethnicity, and religion, all climate scientists agree that climate change is real. Global average temperature has risen by about 1˚C (1.8˚F) over the last 150 […]
[…] academicians and scientists. Regardless of differences in nationality, ethnicity, and religion, all climate scientists agree that climate change is real. Global average temperature has risen by about 1˚C (1.8˚F) over the last 150 […]
[…] academicians and scientists. Regardless of differences in nationality, ethnicity, and religion, all climate scientists agree that climate change is real. Global average temperature has risen by about 1˚C (1.8˚F) over the last 150 […]
Who are you to speak with authority? The world is literally burning up. Alaska, Arctic, Russia. July hottest month on record. Hurricaines increasing yearly. Extreme cold in winter IS part of the model. That is easy to understand. All the predictions coming true but if they aren’t exactly to the day as predicted, naysayers use it as evidence we are overreacting. What is to overeact to? what we have now is Bad, and if it gets to the proportions predicted, that would be disaster. I do not understand the chosen ignorance. There is not a GOD coming to save the day, he is coming to punish you for ruining his earth. the data is real and obvious.
[…] academicians and scientists. Regardless of differences in nationality, ethnicity, and religion, all climate scientists agree that climate change is real. Global average temperature has risen by about 1˚C (1.8˚F) over the last 150 […]
[…] environmentalists use several strategies to silence those who try to critically review their distortion of climate science. One is to call anyone who disagrees with their theory a […]
[…] that climate change isn’t real. Others also believe that what we are seeing today isn’t climate change and that these changes don’t prove anything because they aren’t as drastic […]
[…] environmentalists use several strategies to silence those who try to critically review their distortion of climate science. One is to call anyone who disagrees with their theory a […]
Didn’t the pause in global warming falsify the theory that there is a direct, causative correlation between the Earth’s surface temperature and the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide? Why no. It turns out that the average annual surface temperature of the Earth is a very difficult thing to pin down, as it involves many thousands of temperature readings from thousands of distinct locations, and the raw data have to be weighted and adjusted before they can be averaged. And so the apparent pause in the warming was really just a multiyear pattern where the calculations were erroneous. Now we’ve corrected the error and, recalculating the averages, there was no pause, and once again the Earth’s temperature is bounding upwards, and it’s all your fault and give us money or you’ll all fry.
So, just to review: The calculation of the principal datum, the Earth’s mean annual surface temperature, is so complex that, if you tinker around with the mechanics of the calculation, you can get it to produce the result you want. And, even though the entire climate change alarm industry depends upon an upward trend in the temperature, it cannot be that the people who make the calculation could have given in to the temptation to rig the calculation to produce “The Warmest Years in the History of the Planet.” Shame on you for even thinking such a thing.
One thing I’ve noticed about enthusiasts for the global warming narrative: They’re all the sort of people who have never in their lives questioned the people they have decided to obey. That’s why, to them, the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists, blah, blah, blah, is an irrefutable argument that global warming is occurring.
Climate stagnation is the sure end to pesky climate change. The quickest route is obviously nuclear winter. Then our planet can be like mars or venus: no climate change.
[…] 21. Four Reasons Alarmists Are Wrong on Climate Change By Vijay Jayaraj — April 26, 2018 https://www.masterresource.org/alarmism/four-reasons-alarmists-wrong-climate-change/ […]
False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet
By Bjorn Lomborg
Basic Books, 2020
Hurricanes batter our coasts. Wildfires rage across the American West. Glaciers collapse in the Artic. Politicians, activists, and the media espouse a common message: climate change is destroying the planet, and we must take drastic action immediately to stop it. Children panic about their future, and adults wonder if it is even ethical to bring new life into the world.
Enough, argues bestselling author Bjorn Lomborg. Climate change is real, but it’s not the apocalyptic threat that we’ve been told it is. Projections of Earth’s imminent demise are based on bad science and even worse economics. In panic, world leaders have committed to wildly expensive but largely ineffective policies that hamper growth and crowd out more pressing investments in human capital, from immunization to education.
False Alarm will convince you that everything you think about climate change is wrong — and points the way toward making the world a vastly better, if slightly warmer, place for us all.
Just found this website. What I don’t understand is why there is no reviewing of naval logs. The British Royal Navy must have records going back to the eighteen hundreds showing temperatures from around the world, also the Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese naval archives. All these readings would provide a wealth of data accurately taken down. David Stern.