It's not just climate change. The entire environmental movement has been nothing but one Chicken Little after another since its formation in 1950. Its only real principle has always been to oppose all the acts of progress and production that make life better -- especially in the US and the West.

I would be very surprised if the whole thing doesn't turn out to be a project by "globalists" and the UN to deliberately retard the advanced countries until the Chinese, Hindi, and/or Africans can dominate the world by sheer overpopulation. If their favorite philosopher Malthus tells us anything it is that we should have refused to permit that to happen 50 years ago, and now that it is starting to come to fruition we had better prepare to fight a nuclear war or civilization is doomed -- not by eco-catastrophe but by the horde of Marching Morons.

Hmmmm....preposterous estimator That sounds an awful lot like a democRAT 8^)

Interesting....I have noticed recent Gulch comments seem to have produced fewer comments about various subjects. This one however has led me thru two cups of coffee.

Interesting. Nice catch. Fudging the data can fool some of the people some of the time.

Actually, estimating a planetary temperature is not easy even with highly calibrated digital instruments of today, which were only available in any quantity after ca 1990 (side note: maybe the famous hockey stick is only an artifact of digital tech supplanting older analog tech). I don't think anyone can say with a straight face what the planetary temperature exactly was in the 19th century and anything before the invention of a decent thermometer is nothing more than an extrapolation of a supposition of guess.

Yes, I've noticed the same. I figure when there is a massive fire sale on beach front property, then there might be something to worry about.

Thanks for sharing these.

The big argument against nuclear is that the nuclear waste -- which is relatively small -- has a long half life. On the other hand batteries use heavy metals which can be poisonous. Anyone know the half-life of an element?

$5Au's daughter, $3Ag, just returned from Key West and reported that the beaches are fine. The island has not disappeared due to climate weirding.

The actual science is complex. However, there are some shortcuts that laymen can use in evaluating whether someone is doing good science or not.

1. If you say "the science is settled", you are not doing science. Have you ever heard anyone say "the science of gravity is settled"?

2. Real science requires skeptical critique. Real scientists want their work to be studied. If you call the people who disagree with your conclusions "deniers" to equate them to Holocast deniers, you aren't doing science.

3. Real science is not done by polling scientists.

1) CO2 as a direct greenhouse gas is completely incapable of causing the asserted effect. Not even close, and all climate scientists know this.
2) This fact is obscured from the mainstream, almost with nationalistic or military effort.
3) Few/no green advocates support the only immediately viable solution to the CO2 challenge, nuclear power. It is ready and safe right now.

Therefore with the facts, obfuscation and ready solution ignored, I conclude this is a power grab, not physics, not one bit different than the promises of communism.

Here is a list with extensive backgrounds of some most prominent pro and con climate change researchers.
https://thebestschools.org/features/t...
Sometimes just a list of IPCC authors of the reports are given with no indication as to their pro or con of human caused climate change.

IF it is real, why do the scientists pushing it have to go back 180 years and change the temperatures - up some years, down others - to make it look like there was more warming, and that there was NOT a pause in the last 30 years?
https://realclimatescience.com/2015/1...
From my own review (real NASA / GISS site data, well as 'real' as it gets):
Boston 2011 : https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...
Boston 2015+ https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...

So it seems like if falls under the category of "Man Made UP Global Warming."

Exactly, Ben did a video on that, explaining that if they accounted for everything coming from the sun and the cosmic radiation in their models...not only would there be no warming but they would see that the Sun is in charge of what happens on earth...not mankind nor carbon or cow farts...

Hell, just those suspects alone is worth a 10 degree increase globally..

We have been listening to the same gloom and doom prophecy for nearly fifty years now, the early seventies, each with a different scenario but all with a timetable that has come and gone with no appreciable shift in the climate. First we were headed to an ice age, then it was Dante's Inferno on Earth, the it was just CHANGE, how ingenious since the climate has been changing for billions of years. It was warmer between @ 900 to 1300 than predicted for our future and then it was the end of the dark ages, the Renaissance occurred. All should be taken with a grain of salt. How could the same data (past history of the climate) be able to produce two opposed predictions? The daily weather forecasts leave much to be desired so why is the 12, 50 or 100 year predictions any more accurate.
We learned that the computer model, no longer invoked, provided the same answer no matter the information fed into it, it was fixed. Any one who disagreed with the 'consensus' (science is never based on consensus but empirical evidence) was chastised and labeled a denier. I do believe the climate changes but it is a natural phenomenon while only man has the audacity to think he can do anything about it!

That graph makes me wonder about what temps were when the dinosaurs roamed the earth.
My guess: MUCH warmer since plant and animal life was abundant everywhere.

Thanks for the post.

HAD to +1 that!!!!

Not once have I heard or read the mention of all the active volcanoes contribution. I mean there are over 1500 active volcanoes on earth at this time and if you have ever been close to one of them you would know what I mean. I read somewhere in the past that Mt. Etna in Sicily produces more CO2 in one year than all the automobiles since invented.. Not once do you hear of accounting for this.

I do believe it is all a bunch of hooey. Yes CO2 is needed by plant life and they help us out with O2 replacement, pretty good balance for the world if you ask me. Not one mention of the Methane that is given off naturally from the oceans, and swamps, and believe it or not some rivers especially in Africa produce a ton of methane. NO where do you hear them mention those points.

Something to think about.

It really is nonsensical. I would think that a land based nuclear plant would inherently be safer than a warship that gets bounced around by wealther, perhaps by missiles, and could sink pretty much anywhere (even in a relatively shallow harbor)

I read all of Crichton's books. His fiction had appeal because - as you said - they were based on rigorous research. That probably came from his training as a physician.

I was also skeptical of his untimely passing. It came out of the blue.

I believe the climate has been changing since the beginning of time. But do I believe man has an effect on climate? The answer is no. Maybe
miniscule if any. The sun, earthquakes, volcanos etc have any major impact. They are much mightier than man. So far. Just my two cents.

Here is an interesting link. Another factor usually ignored is charged particle fluxes from the sun that cause heating in the upper atmosphere (called "ohmic heating"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYoOc...

It’s one thing for private scientists to predict weather. On behalf of paying customers. It’s not a proper function of government at all

AND those nuclear powered air crafts only have to refuel every 20 years (if not longer)!
Two months back some navy recruiters gave a presentation at my school and told us their ship needed a refuel every 50 years and produced around 1 trash can full of nuclear waste in that time span. Not sure if I remembered incorrectly or if it really is that efficient, but that just goes to show how nonsensical it is to reduce the use of nuclear energy.

I think we will be in much greater peril when the Climate stops changing.
All the money in all of the world won't do a damn thing to substantially change the climate and Pollution is our greater fear.