Nice post, sir. Thank you. At your invitation, and with all due respect, sir, I offer these comments, structured around two over-arching questions: First, is climate change a hoax. Second, does the benefit of COP conferences justify the cost?
A particularly troublesome problem in climate communications today is the fundamental definition of “change.” Many believe “climate change” to mean “a catastrophe is waiting just around the corner that will end life on earth as we know it.” That belief is accompanied by demands that only by stopping the consumption of fossil fuels can this catastrophe be averted.
Others take a more measured approach, believing that the climate is changing and has been since the atmosphere formed. What we are experiencing today is well within the changes demonstrated over time. That belief is supplemented with the urge to prepare for those changes through adaptive measures.
There are also those who believe not only that the climate is NOT changing, but who believe a completely stable climate is the only prerequisite for man’s survival. Indeed, we are to believe that the most adaptable species that has ever existed, a species so sophisticated it can survive in outer space, requires an absolutely stable average temperature and sea level in order to survive? This belief defies common sense, but nevertheless persists.
I will not speculate where Mr. Trump falls within the spectrum of those extremes. I will say, however, that my dictionary defines a “hoax” as something intended to deceive or defraud and I believe those who espouse climate change as catastrophic are indeed perpetrating a hoax. Since man first stood upright, he has been taking measures to adapt to his climate, beginning with his use of caves for shelter and protection. Over time, man has mastered his climate by providing shelter with warmth in the winter and cool in the summer; protection from storms and weather extremes; and by understanding how to move about within different climates yet still thrive.
Therefore, I would conclude that “climate change is a hoax” is an accurate statement when speaking of those who would have us fear climate change rather than understand it. The intent of those who speak of catastrophe is not to prevent catastrophe from happening but rather to control those of us who disagree. Before we assess what is or isn't true, we need to first have a common understanding of the very meaning for the words. Then, and only then, can we say it is an undeniable truth, or it is a lie.
The purpose of the Conference of the Parties (COP) is to negotiate and assess progress on addressing climate change. The COP is the decision-making body for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty that includes nearly every country in the world. We will soon commence the 29th edition of this conference.
It is a well-known axiom that however beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. After 29 conferences, has “climate change” been stopped? No. Have emissions been reduced? No. Has the use of fossil fuel declined? No; in fact, it has increased. Do those measures indicate any sort of success in “addressing climate change?” You are aware, I’m sure, of the definition of insanity – doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. In essence, the COP has become the world’s largest gathering of climate evangelists and purveyors of virtue signaling extraordinaire.
Over the past 150 years, the use of fossil fuels has greatly improved our lives! The entire climate argument was born from the fears of death and destruction wrought by expected coming extreme weather. Yet, the deaths from such events have been REDUCED by two orders of magnitude. Are we living longer, have we greatly expanded our abilities to feed billions of people? Are we healthier? Do more people live above poverty? The answer to all of these questions is yes. Further, those improvements have occurred in spite of the fact that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by over 50 percent, and global mean temperatures have increased by over 1 degree Celsius.
Those who attend the COP and who believe a decarbonized society is man’s only hope for survival might do well to understand that until a few hundred years ago, nearly all the energy used by humans was renewable, and life was certainly not a utopian heaven on Earth. Members of the COP might make far better use of their time, expenditures, and private-jet emissions if they asked the climate question differently: how can we improve our methods of burning fossil fuels for energy in ways that minimize effects to climate while maximizing our benefits to the lives that climate supports? Environmentalist have long been crying for sustainability. Is it sustainable to base our livelihoods on the least energy dense resources available (wind and solar)? Are there measures available to economically reduce emissions without reducing our access to reliable and affordable energy?
This is what the COP needs to address. Not climate change, per se, but how can we continue to find, develop, and use safe, reliable, and affordable energy sources to allow humanity to thrive and adapt to those changes when they inevitably arrive at our front door.
Neither arms of your dichotomy makes much sense to me.
Are there geophysical process going on as a result to the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere that are harmful enough to warrant certain measures to detain that accumulation? Yes and so to claim that identifying those future harms is a "hoax" is a lie.
To claim that a possible future event is a truth or a lie is nonsense. The event hasn't occurred yet, and therefore has no substance or context. It does have risk. Apparently you believe that risk will be harmful. I don't. That doesn't make me a liar. A skeptic in your eyes, perhaps, but certainly not a liar.
What geophysical process are you talking about. Evidence today shows clearly a rise in temperature, but there is no evidence that man's activities have contributed to such weather phenomena as hurricanes, tornadoes, tropical cyclones, hydrologic drought, and other extreme weather conditions. A better question, how much of the recorded temperature rise is due to CO2, and how much can be attributed to land use changes and urbanization effects. Perhaps the COP can figure out ways to plant more trees and grass, both of which thrive on CO2, and plant far less concrete and steel.
I am of the same opinion as Lindzen; the climate is driven by two turbulent fluids interacting with an irregular land surface on a rotating planet. Lots of dynamic variables there. Oceanic oscillations, aerosols, greenhouse gases (the most important of which is water vapor), volcanoes, variations in solar radiation and albedo, and solar system gravitational effects all contribute to climate.
The hoax isn't whether or not the climate is changing. It is, as it has, and as it will be. The hoax lies in the claims that this change will be existential to life on earth. It will not. The earth has been far warmer, and it has been far colder. Life nevertheless persisted. It may be different, but it will not end. The hoax lies in the claims that we can stop this change. Do you really believe mankind can alter the Milankovich cycles, or the amount of solar radiation that reaches earth, or what the condition of the atmosphere might be when that radiation reaches earth? That's simply preposterous! The climate will do what it damn well pleases. The hoax lies in the claims that we should not focus our efforts on preparation and adaption, but rather to "stop" the climate from changing.
Not sure why my argument on COP didn't make sense. Fact is, it's been happening for decades and has no proven success, if you measure that success on emissions reductions or reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels. Please don't tell me you think those are lies, too. COP needs to refocus, for sure, but not double down.
You've said you do not subscribe to Doomberg, which I can understand and appreciate. But COP would do well to remember one of Doomie's favorite sayings: In the battle between physics and platitudes, physics is undefeated.
Nice post, sir. Thank you. At your invitation, and with all due respect, sir, I offer these comments, structured around two over-arching questions: First, is climate change a hoax. Second, does the benefit of COP conferences justify the cost?
A particularly troublesome problem in climate communications today is the fundamental definition of “change.” Many believe “climate change” to mean “a catastrophe is waiting just around the corner that will end life on earth as we know it.” That belief is accompanied by demands that only by stopping the consumption of fossil fuels can this catastrophe be averted.
Others take a more measured approach, believing that the climate is changing and has been since the atmosphere formed. What we are experiencing today is well within the changes demonstrated over time. That belief is supplemented with the urge to prepare for those changes through adaptive measures.
There are also those who believe not only that the climate is NOT changing, but who believe a completely stable climate is the only prerequisite for man’s survival. Indeed, we are to believe that the most adaptable species that has ever existed, a species so sophisticated it can survive in outer space, requires an absolutely stable average temperature and sea level in order to survive? This belief defies common sense, but nevertheless persists.
I will not speculate where Mr. Trump falls within the spectrum of those extremes. I will say, however, that my dictionary defines a “hoax” as something intended to deceive or defraud and I believe those who espouse climate change as catastrophic are indeed perpetrating a hoax. Since man first stood upright, he has been taking measures to adapt to his climate, beginning with his use of caves for shelter and protection. Over time, man has mastered his climate by providing shelter with warmth in the winter and cool in the summer; protection from storms and weather extremes; and by understanding how to move about within different climates yet still thrive.
Therefore, I would conclude that “climate change is a hoax” is an accurate statement when speaking of those who would have us fear climate change rather than understand it. The intent of those who speak of catastrophe is not to prevent catastrophe from happening but rather to control those of us who disagree. Before we assess what is or isn't true, we need to first have a common understanding of the very meaning for the words. Then, and only then, can we say it is an undeniable truth, or it is a lie.
The purpose of the Conference of the Parties (COP) is to negotiate and assess progress on addressing climate change. The COP is the decision-making body for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty that includes nearly every country in the world. We will soon commence the 29th edition of this conference.
It is a well-known axiom that however beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. After 29 conferences, has “climate change” been stopped? No. Have emissions been reduced? No. Has the use of fossil fuel declined? No; in fact, it has increased. Do those measures indicate any sort of success in “addressing climate change?” You are aware, I’m sure, of the definition of insanity – doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. In essence, the COP has become the world’s largest gathering of climate evangelists and purveyors of virtue signaling extraordinaire.
Over the past 150 years, the use of fossil fuels has greatly improved our lives! The entire climate argument was born from the fears of death and destruction wrought by expected coming extreme weather. Yet, the deaths from such events have been REDUCED by two orders of magnitude. Are we living longer, have we greatly expanded our abilities to feed billions of people? Are we healthier? Do more people live above poverty? The answer to all of these questions is yes. Further, those improvements have occurred in spite of the fact that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by over 50 percent, and global mean temperatures have increased by over 1 degree Celsius.
Those who attend the COP and who believe a decarbonized society is man’s only hope for survival might do well to understand that until a few hundred years ago, nearly all the energy used by humans was renewable, and life was certainly not a utopian heaven on Earth. Members of the COP might make far better use of their time, expenditures, and private-jet emissions if they asked the climate question differently: how can we improve our methods of burning fossil fuels for energy in ways that minimize effects to climate while maximizing our benefits to the lives that climate supports? Environmentalist have long been crying for sustainability. Is it sustainable to base our livelihoods on the least energy dense resources available (wind and solar)? Are there measures available to economically reduce emissions without reducing our access to reliable and affordable energy?
This is what the COP needs to address. Not climate change, per se, but how can we continue to find, develop, and use safe, reliable, and affordable energy sources to allow humanity to thrive and adapt to those changes when they inevitably arrive at our front door.
My two cents, adjusted for inflation.
Neither arms of your dichotomy makes much sense to me.
Are there geophysical process going on as a result to the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere that are harmful enough to warrant certain measures to detain that accumulation? Yes and so to claim that identifying those future harms is a "hoax" is a lie.
To claim that a possible future event is a truth or a lie is nonsense. The event hasn't occurred yet, and therefore has no substance or context. It does have risk. Apparently you believe that risk will be harmful. I don't. That doesn't make me a liar. A skeptic in your eyes, perhaps, but certainly not a liar.
What geophysical process are you talking about. Evidence today shows clearly a rise in temperature, but there is no evidence that man's activities have contributed to such weather phenomena as hurricanes, tornadoes, tropical cyclones, hydrologic drought, and other extreme weather conditions. A better question, how much of the recorded temperature rise is due to CO2, and how much can be attributed to land use changes and urbanization effects. Perhaps the COP can figure out ways to plant more trees and grass, both of which thrive on CO2, and plant far less concrete and steel.
I am of the same opinion as Lindzen; the climate is driven by two turbulent fluids interacting with an irregular land surface on a rotating planet. Lots of dynamic variables there. Oceanic oscillations, aerosols, greenhouse gases (the most important of which is water vapor), volcanoes, variations in solar radiation and albedo, and solar system gravitational effects all contribute to climate.
The hoax isn't whether or not the climate is changing. It is, as it has, and as it will be. The hoax lies in the claims that this change will be existential to life on earth. It will not. The earth has been far warmer, and it has been far colder. Life nevertheless persisted. It may be different, but it will not end. The hoax lies in the claims that we can stop this change. Do you really believe mankind can alter the Milankovich cycles, or the amount of solar radiation that reaches earth, or what the condition of the atmosphere might be when that radiation reaches earth? That's simply preposterous! The climate will do what it damn well pleases. The hoax lies in the claims that we should not focus our efforts on preparation and adaption, but rather to "stop" the climate from changing.
Not sure why my argument on COP didn't make sense. Fact is, it's been happening for decades and has no proven success, if you measure that success on emissions reductions or reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels. Please don't tell me you think those are lies, too. COP needs to refocus, for sure, but not double down.
You've said you do not subscribe to Doomberg, which I can understand and appreciate. But COP would do well to remember one of Doomie's favorite sayings: In the battle between physics and platitudes, physics is undefeated.
Hi Thomas -- nice piece -- but we all know it already -- been there, done that