“Back to Lindsey Gulden, the self-described Data/Climate Scientist. She would/could not provide a time series example to back up any part of her claim of ‘global climate to go off the rails’ … ‘more extreme events’. I asked her repeatedly for data, and she could only sign-off with ‘I made no such claim‘.”
On LinkedIn, Saul Humphrey stated: 2023 was the hottest year on record and 2024 is threatening to be hotter still. Humphrey then quotes from an article in The Independent, “Do the People Care About the Climate Crisis? These Voters Say Yes – but Polls Do Not” (April 19, 2024):
In the US 🇺🇸 wildfires destroyed more than 1.7 million acres in the first three months of 2024, already half of last year’s total, and forecasters expect an unprecedented number of Atlantic hurricanes.
Around 87 per cent of Americans say they have experienced at least one extreme weather event in the past five years — whether that’s drought, extreme heat, severe storms, wildfires or flooding. Three-quarters of adults believe the science that climate crisis is at least partly to blame, and the same percentage want the federal government to do something about it.
But when it comes to this year’s presidential election, the issue trails inflation, healthcare, immigration and jobs in the list of voter priorities.”
Humphrey concludes: “What does it take make the climate crisis the priority? Do we need to witness Armageddon before we do what is necessary?”
Note the irony of a person telling the rest of us: You are wrong and I am right on climate alarmism. And the audacity to use government coercion and taxpayer financing to impose the solution on the unschooled masses.
I commented on LinkedIn: “False causality. That is the real problem. Exaggeration backfires.”
Some 70 replies followed from a variety of folks, including some plenty smart-and-informed “skeptics” of climate alarm/forced energy transformation. But one comment stood out. Lindsey Gulden, self-described Data Scientist/Climate Scientist, stated:
Saul Humphrey: you should perhaps take it as a badge of honor that your posts seem to attract frequent input from Atlas Network folks who are paid to promote climate disinformation.
I answered: “False causality. Beliefs and the intellectual/moral high ground explain my passion and those that I know in the movement. Many of us take less pay to be able to challenge the false narrative of the Climate Industrial Complex. Consumers matter. Taxpayers matter. Fiscal sanity in the public sector matters. Freedom among consenting adults matter….”
Gulden: “Coming from a long line of fiscal conservatives, I agree with all of these statements: “Consumers matter. Taxpayers matter. Fiscal sanity in the public sector matters. Freedom among consenting adults matter.” What is bizarre to me is that we seem to be using the exact same values to make diametrically opposite points. It is fiscally irresponsible for any government to continue to use taxpayer dollars to give substantial corporate welfare to an industry that is causing the global climate to go off the rails and, with it, the stability of global markets, political systems, food supplies, etc. It is all in the service of a small group of people whose bank accounts benefit massively from the status quo. I don’t question your sincerity of belief. But I’d suggest those of you taking lower pay ought to demand the same pay as the executives of the industry you are propping up.”
Bradley: “I disagree with your alarmism in the last part of your sentence: ‘that is causing the global climate to go off the rails and, with it, the stability of global markets, political systems, food supplies, etc.’ Is this statement justified by time series data or climate model projections? The whole point of market wealth is resiliency to extreme weather from any cause–and that is where the advantages of dense, reliable, affordable mass energies come into play.”
Gulden: “The most problematic component of climate change isn’t that the mean temperature goes up. It’s that there is much more variability and much less predictability. More extreme events (extreme freezes, extreme precipitation, extreme heat). Uncertainty is bad for markets. So if you care about healthy free markets, dismissing climate change out of hand is risky.”
Bradley: “Show me the time series data on that. A reduction in the diurnal cycle does not suggest dire results. Hurricanes are less in theory and data, right? Are you saying that nature is optimal and/or cooling would reduce extremes? In any case, any extremes need affordable, reliable, plentiful energies–not wind and solar and batteries. And politicians and government failure.”
Gulden: “data on increasing extreme events are plentiful and from reputable sources. Hurricane frequency and intensity are increasing. For information from a reliable source, see, for example, https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/extreme-weather/.
Your assertion that ‘it’s just a decrease in the diurnal cycle’ doesn’t really hold water as an argument for lack of harm, even with just a bit of consideration. Being able to cool down at night is essential for people trying to survive heat waves without A/C. Regarding ‘government failure and politicians’: Politicians can at least be voted out of office. Although I’d *like* to vote oil and gas industry executives’ self-interested manipulations of civil society out of our daily life, I can’t.
Renewables are more affordable than oil and gas. Battery storage makes them more reliable. All of the above leads me to the conclusion that Atlas Network should provide member groups with more accurate talking points…although I must admit I do not think ‘accuracy’ is their goal.”
Bradley: “The NASA link is not responsive. I asked for time series data over the decades of extreme weather events, not what is supposed to happen under (incomplete) theory or what is predicted to happen from speculative climate models. Take the frequency of hurricanes over the last century or so. What does it show (asking you as a climate scientist).”
Gulden: “and no, that isn’t my area of expertise—which is why I pointed you to reputable sources on the subject.”
As this point,
Mark Rohrbacher commented: “… both Lomborg and Alex Epstein (and various weather sites) have researched ‘increased weather extremes and found them to be unsupported by data. I live in a hurricane area and our area has had a historically low amount of serious hurricanes in the last 30 years.”
Gulden: “Alex Epstein, formerly of the Cato Institute, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, who does not like to discuss his funding sources, right? Who has no training in research?”
Bradley: “You lost some credibility by going ad hominem on Alex Epstein, who is merely providing the official statistics on weather extremes from others, as is Lomborg. I follow Alex Epstein and know him personally. He has never worked for Cato. Please show us the graph and link on hurricanes, quantitatively, number and intensity, for the last century. This is your area as a climate scientist, right?”
Gulden: “my bad…it seem I err in his former employer. Perhaps it is another libertarian think tank. Regardless, I see no way that mentioning his employers, his relevant credentials or lack thereof, and his refusal to disclose funding sources—completely relevant when your topic of writing is climate change and fossil fuels—are ‘ad hominem’ attacks. But if you wish to frame it in that way, I cannot stop you.”
Bradley: “A person without a high school degree can be right and a PhD expert wrong. (‘Expert Failure’ is a fascinating subject covered in a book of this title by Roger Koppl, by the way.) Can you simply provide the time series data on hurricanes or other extreme events to support your general claim of increasing extreme events? Just stick to the arguments and data please.”
Gulden: “I made no such claim. You may judge me as you wish. I’m going to adjourn from this discussion. Good luck.”
—————–
The entire thread should be read to see a variety of take-downs of the alarmist narrative. Kudos to Mark Rohrbacker, Matt Essex, Chris Matchette-Downes, Ian McCoy, Joseph Toomey, Richard Re, Les McMenzie, Lewis Ludwig, John Basilio, Richard Ericson, and many others. Their level of critical engagement of the alarmist narrative is impressive, indicating how the smart, critical middle is not buying what the Malthusian consensus is selling.
Back to Lindsey Gulden, the self-described Data Scientist/Climate Scientist. She would/could not provide a time series example to back up any part of her claim of ‘global climate to go off the rails’ … ‘more extreme events’. I asked her repeatedly for data, and she could only sign-off with ‘I made no such claim‘.” What an embarrassment to herself and her profession.
Appendix
Gulden’s lack of understanding about energy and economics basics is obvious from statements such as: “Renewables are more affordable than oil and gas” and “rooftop solar panels make good economic sense“.
Many other of her statements in the long thread are easily refutable, but I will stick to climate science. Note her silence on the benefits of CO2; the upside of moderate warming with a reduction of the diurnal cycle, the saturation effect of GHG forcing, all arguments against climate alarmism from a physical-science viewpoint.