A Linked-in contact posted this VERY INTERESTING testimony of John R. Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville to the Subcommittee on Environment Committee on Science, Space and Technology on 11December 2013 titled “A Factual Look at the Relationship Between Climate and Weather

Please note: The author does not claim to prove or disprove global warming. He is merely pointing out the Faux Science behind many of the claims and demands for immediate action. Excellent data graphs are included to illustrate the points. Many of these points have been made elsewhere on this blog based on other references. This author is well credentialed and is not just some outlier. Some quotes include:

Page 1:

– “As the global temperature failed to warm over the past 15 years, it became popular to draw attention to the occurrence of extreme weather events as worrisome consequences of postulated climate change due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.”

DROUGHT – “… we know our nation experienced droughts in the 12th century, the so-called mega-droughts, which were much worse than any we’ve seen in the past century. Thus, droughts of the past 50 years are not unusual and obviously not “unprecedented” as shown …”

Page 2:

– “A 500-year history of moisture in the upper Colorado River basin (below) indicates the past century was quite moist while major multi-decadal droughts occurred in all four prior centuries … These and other evidences point to the real probability that water supply in the West will see declines simply as a matter of the natural variability of climate.”

– “In the Great Plains, the period from 3000 to 1500 years ago saw a drier and warmer climate during which a significant parabolic sand dune ecosystem developed, especially in western Nebraska and NE Colorado”

Page 3:

AVG. DAILY TEMPS – “It is true that the number of records in 2012 was quite high, thanks to a very warm March and a hot Mid-Western summer. However in comparison to the heat waves of the 1930s, the summer was not the “worst” for heat. 2012 finished in 8th place on the list, …” going back to 1895

TORNADOS – “NOAA indicates we are in a very low tornado period in our country – in fact the current year (right, black line) is the lowest year-to-date (Nov.) value in the 60 year history. … It is simply a recognition that the number of tornadoes can vary significantly from year to year and there is no long term trend”

WILDFIRES & SNOWFALL – 2013, “The current year has included the huge Rim Fire in the central Sierra Nevada of California, but, on the whole, the year is well below average as shown … A related metric is total snowfall in the Sierra of California which has also shown no trend since the Southern Pacific Railroad Company began measuring snowfall in 1878”

Page 4:

ANTARCTIC – this warming trend is not unique. More dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-nineteenth and eighteenth centuries suggesting that at present, the effect of anthropogenic climate drivers at this location has not exceeded the natural range of climate variability in the context of the past ~300 years

Page 7:

MODELS – “the IPCC relies on climate models to distinguish “natural” from “human” caused climate change because instruments can’t. However, as demonstrated, these same models on average fail by a significant amount to reproduce the climate of the past 35 years”

Page 8:

– “Now, it is true that in the models, most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to greenhouse gases, but since the model-based warming did not occur in reality (by a significant amount), how can one claim that reality was driven by greenhouse gas warming?”

Page 9:

HISTORY OF GLOBAL WARMING FORECASTING – “The current record is now twice as long as was available when I testified in 1996 and the models are more complicated, expensive and numerous, representing an industry unto itself. The comparison shows that the very latest climate models’ tropical response to CO2, on average, is still 2 to 5 times greater than reality, just as it was in 1996”

– “Unfortunately, as demonstrated here and discussed in the literature, climate models have not demonstrated acceptable skill in terms of depicting even very fundamental, large-scale climate variations, and thus are unable to identify natural versus human-influenced events on regional scales.”


So where do I (Gil) stand – This paper has only enforced what I already believed – We just don’t know what we are talking about as of yet. GLOBAL CHANGE IN UNDENIABLE but predicting where it is headed other than up and down and about the same over undetermined time periods is pure speculation until we gather the facts, quit playing Chicken Little, and approach this based on the scientific method as opposed to the same kind of elite group think that has resulted in a net negative by messing up our national forest ecosystems without accomplishing the objective of saving the NSO. The difference between this and the NSO fiasco is that the consequences are much greater.


  1. Gil,

    For years I have told me forestry students, in classes in which we examine climate change, that the Earth has been warming for about 300 years, that some percent of that warming is due to natural causes and some is due to human activity, and that no one, not even climate scientists, knows with certainty what percentage to assign to either. By coincidence, Roy Spencer says about the same thing on his blog today (

    • Steve

      I did an analysis of the study that came up with the 97% agreement among climatologists referred to by Mr. Spencer. The best that I could come up with giving them the benefit of doubt and using their information was 72% and that was ignoring several other major problems with the authors work. –

      But we must also remember that 100% of the human population thought that the world was flat at one time sooooo… without the science to back it up and with models that can not reproduce the real world even in a 35 year time period, it is just pure speculation.

    • Rush Limbaugh agrees with you guys also. In fact, Roy Spencer is the “official climatologist” of the Rush Limbaugh Show.

      Spencer is also prolific in other areas of science, especially as a proponent of so-called “intelligent design”, which he finds “more satisfying from an intellectual point of view,” noting that evolution “has virtually no observational evidence to support it. One wonders: Why do so many people defend it so fervently?” I’ll grant him consistency, and the ability to attract like-minded advocates and disciples, and a knack for enforcing what people already believe, perhaps with an excellent graph or two, although there are none in his article here:

      • Guy, does being a proponent of so-called “intelligent design” mean that Spencer’s work in climate science is to be suspect?

        • Steve: Indirectly, yes. While not definitive, to me it’s a red flag about his general understanding of science, maybe not so for others. Much as a complete non sequitur about the color of his underwear would be a red flag. It is a subjective assessment, I acknowledge that, and folks have to make their own decision about what is credible and who is just blowing hot air (no pun intended).

          • GuyK

            You are correct, it was a non sequitur as in “often used for comedic purposes. It is something said that, because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what preceded it, seems absurd to the point of being humorous” –

            Kind of like your dismissive reference to intelligent design – but then that is ok for you to do in all of your sophistication. But then you weren’t being humorous were you? Just your normal self righteous self – prone to demeaning, insulting and casting aspersions (i.e. red flags). Please lay out your standards for the rest of the world to follow? Leave out the one about anyone with religious beliefs is automatically disqualified from any scientific discussion.

            • A reminder that many preservationists subscribe to a faith-based “plan” for our forests, and even the rest of the world. If some “entity” can fix our forests, why can’t it also fix “climate change”? *smirk*

      • GuyK

        So you reject the graphs and facts which illustrate that humans have survived much warmer times and your reason for rejecting the facts is that he wears purple underwear and is a card carrying communist. That is real science – Great illustration of objectivity Guy.

  2. Certainly, only “bad” weather is attributed to “climate change”. It is very clear to me that “natural” warmings of the past far exceed the paltry warming we have right now. I’m “pretty sure” that man’s activities will probably enhanced the bad parts of “climate change”, however, I’ll bet most people also do not want the bad effects of “normal” weather, either. Just ask those folks who endured a long, cold, nasty winter if they want more of the same. And I don’t want to hear that “climate change” causes such winters, either.

  3. Yes, this issue has become hopelessly politicized, which is easy for folks like us to see who are used to the science biz and the politics biz and the sometimes incendiary and somewhat less than hones mix of the two.

    What concerns me is that we are spending money potentially on the wrong things rather than the right things…and that there are people who believe the hype which leads to despair.. never a good thing.

  4. “We just don’t know what we are talking about as of yet.” Yes, that summarizes Christy’s point – but only with respect to the scope of his testimony, which is specific weather events. To characterize this as “SUPPOSITION OR SCIENCE – GLOBAL WARMING” is misleading. So is the reference to science as “hype.”

    What concerns me is that the only political constituencies seem to be for ignorance or despair. There is little political support for action.

    • Jon, I think it depends on the action. Note support for tax incentives for renewables. Even the big fight about how biomass fits in wouldn’t be a big fight if there weren’t policy benefits for renewables.

      There is actually a great deal being done, with political support, but perhaps it’s not as obvious somewhere where the solar and wind folks aren’t in the business news.

      So there is plenty of action, but perhaps not “enough” or “not the right kind” in the views of some people. Which I think is a different concern.

      • I saw the latest and greatest solar installation on my latest trip. It’s so new that it isn’t even on Google Maps! There are three of them right at the California-Nevada border, along Interstate 15. A large grid of mirrors direct the sun’s reflection on a central tower, which shines with almost an alien brilliance. It’s impressive, mesmerizing and a little bit scary looking. I would guess that each of the three units covered 10 acres, and they were lined up, back-to-back-to-back. As I drove past, I wondered what a small drone aircraft with a stick of dynamite could do to it. Will we need mini-Patriot missile systems to protect them from a $200 weapon? It wasn’t too many years ago that a pair of Californians plotted to blow up an 8-story propane tank. LNG import/export? The public is having to accept more and more risks.

        All it will take is a “trick of Physics” to supply us with endless clean power. (But, where’s the profit in THAT?!) Ditto for endless and economical fresh water. I can hear it now…. “We just can’t let that kind of technology get out there. We need to hide it and hoard it”.

    • Jon

      Sharon made no such “reference to science as “hype.”” – you are twisting her words. I read her reference to hype as that which is supposition unsupported by science which is the exact opposite of what you say that she said.

      Can you be more specific than your unsupported statement: ” To characterize this as “SUPPOSITION OR SCIENCE – GLOBAL WARMING” is misleading”? Are you willing to discuss your point of view on a point by point basis rather than just dismissing what many of us believe and relegating our point of view to that not worthy of consideration? If you recheck the opening post you’ll see that his testimony also deals with temperature and, if I am not greatly mistaken, that is what “Global Warming” is all about. Where is your scientific objectivity?

      Most of us with a strong scientific background are not for “ignorance or despair”. We are NOT FOR acting on ignorance but ARE FOR acting on the basis of the rigors of the scientific method which so many want to skip because the “sky is falling”. Look at the historical record, the planet has been much warmer in the past and mankind has survived. We have the time to do it right rather than doing more harm than good.

      • My specific point is maybe that you (the generic you) should read critically (rather than looking for things that support what you already believe).

        Christy says: “My point is that extreme events are poor metrics to use for detecting climate
        change.” That’s the question he was asked to answer, and I think he has a credible point. The question of whether the EXISTENCE of global warming is based on supposition or science is entirely different – and has been answered already. So your heading was misleading.

        I would be interested in how you support your statement that “mankind has survived much worse in terms of temperature changes” (particularly in a way that is relevant to today’s society). (Be sure to include which climate projection you are using.)

        I also wonder if the last 2-4% of the ’round-earth’ deniers were given so much attention back in the day.

        • JonH

          Maybe you should do what you advised me to do. Maybe you should “read critically (rather than looking for things that support what you already believe).”

          – A – You are not being objective because you are ignoring the point in time when 100% of the people were flat earthers. Selective use of only the data that agrees with one’s position seems to be something that you accuse others of without realizing that that is exactly what you are doing.
          –> You missed the author’s and my point – We both stated that the document didn’t “claim to prove or disprove global warming.” I even put that point in BOLD. Why would you twist our words into something that we both explicitly disavowed? If you can’t read what is there then your emotions have gotten in the way. After weighing both sides of the data, the author and I both agree that the scientific evidence does not show current climate change to be outside of the realm of normal variation so if the normal changes in climate were prior to mankind influencing the climate, how can we say ‘we are experiencing abnormal warming’?

          – B – As to your question “would be interested in how you support your statement that “mankind has survived much worse in terms of temperature changes” (particularly in a way that is relevant to today’s society). (Be sure to include which climate projection you are using.)”
          — 1 – Ok, let’s first address a logic problem in your question. What does hypothesized “climate projection” (future tense) have to do with supporting actual facts (i.e. history, i.e. past tense)?
          — 2 – Now let me see if I can figure out what you mean by “in a way that is relevant to today’s society”. Isn’t this a meaningless statement? We are talking about global warming aren’t we. So the only thing that is relevant is temperature which is the same unit of measure in the past as it is today. So how could relevance to today’s society be any different than any other point in the history of mankind? The human body is what determines what is an acceptable temperature range. Can you show me where the human body’s response to temperature is different today than it was a thousand years ago?
          — 3 – So how do I support my claim that “mankind has survived much worse in terms of temperature changes”:
          —- a – Well let’s see there is a graph in page 2 of the author’s testimony that you seem to have missed even though I referred to it in the opening post (NOAA graph agrees). But that is just the recent period since 1895 so let’s look longer in the human record.
          —- b – Immediately below, I’ll put up links to the graphs and articles that I can’t ignore but you have ignored and then you can counter them with your opposing graphs and then we can discuss why any of them should or should not be ignored.
          ——- i **** THIS THE KEY DOCUMENT TO SUPPORT THE STATEMENT THAT MANKIND HAS SURVIVED MUCH WORSE **** NOAA data from the end of the ice age 8500BC through just before 2000AD when the Mann Hockey Stick began to level off. Note that the Mann Hockey Stick is less pronounced than many other upticks in the past – Now, do you still dispute that “mankind has survived much worse in terms of temperature changes”? – See also
          ——- ii – This chart for the same time period definitely counters the tie of temperature to CO2 levels –
          ——- iii – The London “Daily Mail” gives a graph of the flat line in global temperatures since 1997 which corroborates Christy’s point that “global temperature failed to warm over the past 15 years”. It also gives a rundown on the contention between climatologists at the beginning of 2012 –
          ——- iv – The last graph in this very one sided, pro global warming piece clearly shows that the hockey stick is no worse than the sudden climb and drop in temperatures a thousand years ago –
          ——- v – This 9/10/13 piece will surely disappoint you in that it says “even IPCC’s chairman Rajenda Pachuri has admitted that world temperature data has been flat for the past 17 years” – It makes other points which I am sure many will hotly contest – Again, in my humble opinion, this does not prove or disprove global warming. It simply points out contradictions that clearly show we don’t have what it takes to take positions with the extreme certainty that some do –
          ——- vi – This 9/11/13 piece states “for more than 17 years (now 17 years 7 months) the HadCRUt4 monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset had shown no global warming distinguishable from the combined 2 σ measurement” – You definitely won’t want to watch the George Carlin video at the bottom of the post. –

          – C – As to your claims that “The question of whether the EXISTENCE of global warming is based on supposition or science is entirely different – and has been answered already. So your heading was misleading.”
          — a – Look at the graph on page 9 of the testimony. This compares the models predictions against actual temperatures. The actual temperature has only increased by 0.2 degrees centigrade from 1979 to 2013. The average for the models forecast a 1.0 degree increase so the average model is off by 500%. The model closest to actual is only 200% high compared to actual. So how can my heading be misleading? How can “The question of whether the EXISTENCE of global warming is based on supposition or science” be already decided when the models are already off significantly after only 35 years? Your statement that global warming has been decided is what is misleading. If you don’t like Christy’s chart, here are some more charts and articles. Again, I am posting just these not because I am biased but because, I can’t dismiss them. I found plenty that show the projections to be very accurate but in the scientific method you have to rule out anything that opposes one’s hypothesis before you can accept the hypothesis – These opposing viewpoint are what keeps me from jumping on the GW bandwagon until you or someone else can show me the specifics that show that they are wrong.
          — b – “the IPCC projects that the world should have warmed by 0.20 Cº (2.33 Cº/century) since 2005, the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite datasets shows cooling of 0.02 Cº (0.22 Cº/century).” – See Here
          — c – “found that climate model projections of an alarming temperature rise are inconsistent with past observations” –

          Your turn to provide refutations. As I said, I am well aware of the opposing point of view and charts. What I need to know is what facts are false in the above and why.

          • I like the ‘what are the consequences approach’ in your most recent post much better. When we get to the point of taking these kinds of questions seriously, we are making some progress. But I’ll take up your invitation for a last turn on this one.

            For better or for worse, I probably do what most people do who don’t have the time to try to become experts in a new field – I listen to the existing experts. I assume they are aware of all of this information you have provided, and that is reflected in the positions they take. I am more likely to do this where the professional agreement is as high as for climate disruption. I am alert to the possibilities of incentives to not be objective or evidence of bias (such as funding sources or past behavior or associates).

            One piece of this debate I’m a little familiar with is the 15-year cooling period that has become so popular lately (so that over the last couple of years it has become a 17-year period). It’s an anomaly of data presentation, which only proves that it is possible to select and arrange data to prove whatever point you want if you have a bias that you want to support. And once someone does that, I tend to suspect that everything else they say is cherry-picked. For example, not knowing anything about the importance of “Greenland ice core temperature,” I suspect that it may not be a useful piece of information.

            So yes, I am instead inclined to accept without too much critical thinking conclusions like this ‘very one sided, pro global warming piece’ you provided: “The National Academy of Sciences responded to the controversy by asking a panel to review all the evidence. In 2006 the panel announced that while some mistakes had been made (as usually happens in frontier science), the main original conclusions held. The world had indeed grown warmer since the 1980s in a way that was without precedent, at least in the past four centuries for which a reliable record could be reconstructed. While earlier data were much less reliable, the panel found it “plausible” that the world was now hotter than at any time in the past millennium.” (Should I think the NAS is biased?)

            My point about society was about the EFFECTS of climate change on society. I suspect that primitive societies had less to lose and coped better than we would. Maybe you are agreeing with the ultra-greens that we’d be better off with a primitive society? I did note that there was considerable cooling during the “Beer” era. That suggests a solution that might get a lot support 😉

            • JonH

              Thank you for a good way to wrap it all up on good terms. We are interested in the same objectives but have different talents and time demands. I am hoping that we are on the track to trusting that we all have contributions to make if we will stick to facts and be open to contradictions that raise questions.

              Even NASA is not perfect as pointed out on the SAF Linked-in site where a post showed NASA posting a very misleading satellite image of number of fires over a 10 day period over the entire world early this may. If we were to take it at face value we could easily come to the conclusion that there were only 2 more months left for all of us to live before we all died from smoke inhalation. Acreage is what counts. They explicitly acknowledge that the image was not representative yet went ahead and drew very emotional conclusions based on their misinterpretation of the image. Who Guards the Guardian’s?

              As someone who has a very strong scientific bent and lived long enough to gain a keen awareness of our human fallibility. I strongly believe in “Trust But Verify”. That is the reason why I am so intense about trying to hunt down contradictions.

              I am not “agreeing with the ultra-greens that we’d be better off with a primitive society”. We can’t turn the clock back. Society won’t allow it. So let’s see how we move forward on my latest post. Maybe we will get a sense as to whether or not society will allow us to move forward? You may not feel comfortable with specifics but you have enough of a strong opinion that you must have a feeling for who you trust to make that decision. Do you know what specifics they propose? Who are they?

              As to the Beer Era, 🙂 I think that that is better than going of half cocked and later finding out that we did more harm than good. As to your quote that “The world had indeed grown warmer since the 1980s in a way that was without precedent, at least in the past four centuries for which a reliable record could be reconstructed”. Two points that I leave you with:
              1) Fifteen or seventeen years nor four centuries is not enough to build an acceptable model on in regards to predicting the future – There is plenty of evidence showing that most of the models have missed badly for the last 35 years.
              2) Would you agree that the records since 1895 should be even more reliable (requiring fewer assumptions / interpretations) than those for the last four decades that you have accepted? If so, how do you ignore these two facts:
              — a) There have been many years since 1895 when things were warmer than today. So how can you accept: “the panel found it “plausible” that the world was now hotter than at any time in the past millennium.” Doesn’t the data betwen 1895 and 1985 directly refute that?
              —- i) “Plausible” is not science it is a guess
              —- ii) If the data older than “four centuries” is less reliable, what basis do they have for saying that it is “plausible” that the world was now hotter than at any time in the past millennium”. Doesn’t that ring as spin?
              —- iii) Why is it “plausible” to reject the work of other scientist who believe that they have much more reliable data. What makes your scientists more believable than those scientists who have reconstructed core samples going back 11,000 years that tie to the four centuries of data that you accept?
              — b) Did you notice the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures since 1895?


      • I recommend reading two books by Brian Fagan: The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850; and The Great Warming: Climate Change and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations. Fagan, who states that human activity has had significant climate impacts, has documented natural variations extremely well — variations that have had profound impacts on Western civilization.

  5. I don’t know if we have any actual climate scientists on this forum, I’m not one, but it’s pretty easy to find out that many in that field do think that John Christy and Roy Spencer are “outliers” and not credible sources, but caveat lector, as always:

    And as has been pointed out by others here, just because someone is a right wing media darling doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong.

    • Guy, you and I are both plant scientists. Our models of plants’ behavior under different climate and weather over time (in different soils, with different water regimes, with different microflora, and so on) are not all that great, despite at least a century of work.

      Climate scientists can’t predict microclimates at the level perceived by the plant (even if they could predict macro, which is open to question).

      Putting those two things together, I would argue that you don’t have to be a climate scientist to know that many projections for the behavior of plants (and animals who eat them) are questionable, and particularly as a basis for public policy.

      Now planners use scenarios to help them pick the wisest choices under an array of assumptions about the future. Which seems the wiser course to me, because we really don’t know. You could get all the climate scientists in the world to sign on to a projection about the future (“we believe we know”) but that still wouldn’t make it true.

      Science’s credibility has always been based on empiricism. If it’s too complex to check out that way, then society depends on the trustworthiness and integrity of scientists. That’s why folks like Pielke and Curry write about the importance of individuals in the climate science community behaving in a trustworthy way.

    • GuyK

      1) – In regards to your Nazi link – Hansen’s 1981 Projection vs. Actual looks pretty good. Is that the IPCC official model? The obvious concern is that the model will be proven wrong if the flat line beginning in 1997 (which the IPCC agrees with) continues or drops then even Hansen’s projections go down the lu? Time will tell. – see my post above at

      2) Like you say ” just because someone is a right wing media darling doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong”. Likewise just because there is a consensus of less than 72% (not 97% as your Nazi link states) doesn’t mean that they are right. And that is especially true when your link misrepresents the findings of the study on the consensus which the authors of that study clearly say is not the correct interpretation of the study as I explain here Don’t forget that 100% of the world once thought that the world is flat.

      As long as we have caveat lector we have a major problem.

  6. You said “This paper has only enforced what I already believed.”
    Thanks for clarifying your approach to evaluating evidence.

    Another approach is to look at all the evidence, even that which does not reinforce your beliefs, and come to a reasoned conclusion. Among the thousands of PhD scientists who are trained to do this, the vast majority conclude that the earth is changing due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases emissions and if we don’t change our ways ASAP, the earth systems that support human life will be severely damaged.

    • My point is that “it may be true that bad things will happen, both ones we predict and ones we don’t, so we should do something about it” my point is that “we” are somewhat changing our ways.

      The political problem is “who should change their ways?” and “how should they change them?” “who will win and who will lose and how can we mitigate negative consequences to the environment and people from those changes?”

      Climate change scientists do not know about the different technologies, nor about effectiveness of policies and so on. The details of which we are currently working through.

      I would argue that my conclusions are just as reasoned as anyone else’s. No reason to get snarky.

    • FarFromEquilibrium

      If you’d read what I said, you’d have noticed that as someone with a very strong scientific bent, I have objectively looked at the evidence on both sides. Have you noticed how poorly the models have predicted actual temperatures over the last 35 years? They aren’t even in the ball park. Doesn’t that give you any pause in your demand for immediate action? How do you ignore the fact that mankind has survived much worse in terms of temperature changes? Better yet, PLEASE GIVE US AN ACTIONABLE LIST OF THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TODAY THAT YOU CAN DOCUMENT WILL FAVORABLY CHANGE THE FORECAST? PLEASE ALSO GIVE US A TEMPERATURE FORECAST BY REGION THAT WILL TELL US WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS ARE. Seems to me that Chicken Little has to have an actionable plan. What industries are you going to cut out? What is the maximum population that you are going to allow? Are you going to require that no air conditioning is allowed? What heating sources will you allow and what is the maximum temperature that you will allow them to be set for? How are you going to explain to old people that they are going to have to die prematurely because their need for air conditioning and warmer heating levels aren’t allowed? The list goes on? Other than paranoia and platitudes what do you have to offer? What do your climatologists have to offer?

      Have you OBJECTIVELY looked at all of the evidence?

  7. Here is something we all could do that is significant and socially just. Only go to see movies with stars not making more than $100,000 for that picture. It’s the cinematic version of “buying local”. The fewer big stars we have flying around the globe in their private planes, driving around in their ridiculous cars and pretending that money hasn’t changed them, the better. If ten of them put five percent of their worth into buying up and “saving the redwoods”, I’d have more respect for them.

    I really doubt that anyone who often goes to movies would do even this token of “saving the planet”.

    (Did you see me *smirking* almost all the way through?)

  8. Just a couple thoughts:

    –Climate scientists can not say with any certainty what caused the Little Ice Age, but they can tell us with unequivocal certainty that man made climate change will lead to doom. Look, I realized that warming was real when I went to glacier Nat. Park years ago. Hey, the glaciers are melting right. But then I pulled over to an informational overlook, and the sign read “maximum extent of such-and-such glacier which began receding in 1850.” 1850 it “started to recede!” About four miles up the valley you could see a speck of white which is where the glacier is today.

    –Per capita electricity use has doubled in the US since 1970. I guess all the baby boomers grew up to be Republicans since we know a liberal Dem wouldn’t be caught dead contributing to climate change by using more natural resources than his father’s generation.(the fastest growing electricity use are “server farms.” When you post all your useless phone photos to that mysterious place in the Ethernet called “the cloud”….it’s really a one million square feet building loaded with computers that sucks up mega-watts to run and more mega-watts to cool).

    –In the U.S., per/capita electricity use is 4 times that of the rest of the world. Twice that of Europe. 4 times that of China. We have met the enemy…and he is US. The various “renewable mandates” by the various states are too weak for the hardcore. California’s 30% renewable mandate by 2020 must be changed to 50%. We must steel ourselves for personal sacrifice. Jerry Brown needs to lead the way and actively campaign on embracing the financial pain. I hear crickets. The Crickets mock us. Painless “feel goodism” is and always will be the politicians solution to our angst.

    –At the same time, in the name of social equality, we must encourage China to at least double their per/capita electricity use. We’ll bring ours down to Europe’s, and encourage China to bring theirs up to Europe’s. Certainly we can’t condemn the Chinese for wanting to live a lifestyle like we do now, if we won’t make the personal sacrifice to live a lifestyle like they do now?

    –In the last 15 years, 3 “large diameter” (>36” dia.) natural gas pipelines have been built from Wyoming to California and the PNW. They are the El Paso, Kern I and Kern II. I find it ironic that in their pragmatic quest for “reliable” clean and green electricity (look, I’m all for wind…but when I flip the switch I expect lights to be there) ,California greens are responsible for the natural gas fracking boom that is running the sage grouse into the ground in Wyoming (or not). In short, Cali greens are driving Wyoming greens nuts. LOL. (don’t look for the EU to be too hard on Putin over the Ukraine…wind and solar have been a dismal failure in the EU’s aggressive climate action plan…and I would expect another couple Nat. Gas lines to be built from Russia to bail them out of their CO2 reduction deadline-after the dust from that whole “freedom thing” settles of course.)

    –As far as the whole “settled science” bit…the whole climate change thing reminds me of the “energy crisis.” Who remembers Jimmy Cartier? 35 years ago, if you stood up at the podium and claimed “I predict that in 35 years we will have more proven reserves of oil than any time in history” or” I predict we will have 100 years of proven reserves of natural gas” whadda you think would have happened? Well, you would have been scorned by your fellow “scientists,” the prestigious journal “Nature” wouldn’t have published your research, absolutely NO federal research grant money would come your way, you’d be accused of being an “industry hack,” and you wouldn’t be invited to the best of faculty cocktail parties. I can still see the covers of TIME, Newsweek, Nat. Geo predicting the beginning of “Peak Oil.” All the bell curves or reverse Hockey sticks or whatever were wrong. The “Peak Oil” purveyors have now seen their lifes work thrown out the window. But let me tell ya, for 20 years everyone who was anyone predicted peak oil…and now they were wrong.

    And that’s part of the reason that “Climate change doom and gloom” is such a snoozer with the public. In polls, it’s always at the bottom of “concerns”. I think the public is burned out with predications of doom and gloom by scientists. It’s like a bad 50’s Sci-Fi movie. “Breaking headline…new study by UN finds that climate change will lead to giant Locusts attacking Chicago!” C’mon guys, there must be some good that can come out of it. Even Goebbels knew you had to throw in some bad news once in awhile or no one would believe the good propaganda. I just think the public is burned out on “scientists predict doom and gloom”…only to be quietly refuted 10-30 years later. Of course..if I had to “genetically design” a better crisis…I couldn’t have done a better job than this one. Let’s create one that can NEVER be disproved. If it snows more…blame it on climate change, if it snows less…blame it on climate change, if it….well, you get the drift. And remember enviro rule #1…”in all things enviro, the burden of proof is NOT on you to prove the doom and gloom, it is on your opponent to disprove it.”
    Everything is going according to plan…finally we can realize the dreams we’ve had since the first Earth Day…and then quietly retire on a government pension.

    Sorry about the long winded…but I gots 3 days of “home improvement” lined up in front of me…and this just got me out of one hour of it!


Leave a Comment