The Baltimore Sun has thoughts, as reprinted in the Daily Jefferson County Union
Climate change: Are reports of our doom making matters worse?
Even the most casual observer of current events has to admit there is much to be gloomy about. From public health (monkeypox and COVID-19 variants) to mass shootings (Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, among others) to the inability of opinion leaders to agree on basic facts (see the events of Jan. 6, 2021), there is a certain deficit of optimism of late. Throw in some election-year fearmongering on inflation, the stock markets and gasoline prices, and it does seem like the best way to cheer up might be to disconnect from all electronic devices.
Yet in the midst of this profoundly somber time, what subject matter has the commentariat yakking about how doomy forecasts have gone too far and risk unleashing a dangerously apocalyptic mindset upon the populace?
That would be climate change.
Yes, that’s right. Apparently, a lot of folks have gotten too Negative Nancy about how the use of fossil fuels has been fundamentally changing the planet’s climate and not for the better. That’s not to dispute that climate change is a problem exactly (although you can still find plenty in right-wing media casually describing it as a fiction created by political extremists instead of, you know, a demonstrable, carefully measurable trend studied closely by leading scientists). But the critics worry that the circumstances have been cast in such frightening and absolute terms that it may fuel violence. Or it might be creating such despair, especially among young people, that we do little or nothing about the problem. On the internet, people have coined a term, climate “doomers” to describe people who are extremely fatalistic about the problem, and it’s considered really, really bad by both those who accept climate change science and those who deny it.
Doomers? Haven’t really seen much of that at all. Perhaps written as climate Doom, but, they’re usually called Warmists, Alarmists, or cultists. Doom is usually reserved as an adjective, not a noun. But, see, it’s OK to prognosticate doom
There may be something to be said about the hazards of doomsaying. Once there’s no hope, what’s the point, right? But the problem here is that climate change denial remains so rampant that advocates for action feel a need to provide a full-throated warning. According to Pew Research Center, most Americans favor the nation pressing toward carbon neutrality by 2050, but they also favor proving more natural gas, a fossil fuel, to Europe. This suggests a certain lack of firmness in our resolve. Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters overwhelmingly favor U.S. support of international efforts to reduce climate change impacts (92%). But among voters who define themselves as conservative Republicans? A majority would oppose that (57%).
The “Doomers” might be going full-throated, but, few of them are making any changes in their own lives.
Yet color us skeptical that the threat of climate change has been described in too extreme, calamitous terms. For one thing, denial is still too high to believe everyone has gotten the word on the basic premise of global warming. On the other, the outlook does, in fact, look pretty dire. Last year was one of the seven hottest ever recorded, and each decade since the 1980s has been hotter than the previous one. Does anyone seriously believe that enough is being done right now to forestall disaster? Sorry, it can’t be described in rosier terms.
Does this put you in a state of deep despair? What it should do is cause you to advocate for sensible energy policies that might still soften the blow of climate change. Is that too much to expect?
Has the Baltimore Sun stopped using fossil fuels in their own operations? How about the Daily Jefferson? Turned off the AC? Disallowed meat at work?
So global warming is a real problem, but the bigger problem is that those who recognize global warming is a real problem, are saying so! Got it.
Life is hopeless. AGW tells us so.
Dear Elwood:
“The most important thing to remember about climate models which are used to project future global warming is that they were “tuned” with the assumption I started this article with: that the climate system is in a natural state of energy balance, and that there is no long-term climate change unless humans cause it.
This is an arbitrary and illogical assumption. The climate system is an example of a “nonlinear dynamical system”, which means it can change all by itself. For example, slow changes in the rate of vertical overturning of the world’s oceans can cause global warming (or global cooling) with no “external forcing” of the climate system whatsoever.
Instead, the climate models are “tuned” to not produce natural climate change. If a 100-year run of the model produces change, the model is adjusted to removed the “drift””
https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
Dear James,
You assume that ice sheets, sea ice, moose, thermometers, caribou, maple trees, Aedes mosquitoes, Dengue viruses, the oceans, bears, etc read Dr Spencer’s articles. Evidently the physical world is not paying enough attention to you skeptics!
In 2100, when your tombstone is under water, perhaps you’ll reconsider! LOL.
The Dowdster writes: In 2100, when your tombstone is under water, perhaps you’ll reconsider! LOL.
Actually in 2100 when the world is under the thumb of communist China and you have no rights other than those given by them. When the world is used for slave labor, oceans are rising, the air is polluted and there is no one to push back.
Perhaps the Dowdster will reconsider his position.
His point and my point are purely conjecture. For all he knows Mr. James lives in the Rockies and to say his grave will be underwater surmises that the oceans will rise 1000’s of feet in 78 years.
As Mikey Mann points out. Life is hopeless. AGW Tells us so. When you listen to Hairy and Dowd you can see why they believe life is hopeless unless we give everything to China to run for us because Democrats/Leftists are mirror images of the Communist Party of China.
Dear Elwood:
You write: “You assume that ice sheets, etc read Dr Spencer’s articles. Evidently the physical world is not paying enough attention to you…… skeptics!”
That is exactly Dr Spenser’s point. The studies all assume no input beyond what mankind provides….
“The most important thing to remember about climate models which are used to project future global warming is that they were “tuned” with the assumption I started this article with: that the climate system is in a natural state of energy balance, and that there is no long-term climate change unless humans cause it.”
We know that volcanoes eruptions cause cooling. Sun spots, or lack of them, effect cloud cover. The ocean currents can change if a large enough earthquake happened.. etc., etc.
So studies are essentially worthless except to get more money from the suckers and power to do what you want..
None of the forecasts have proven right. NONE. Could one? Sure, but us reasonable headed folks don’t want to give up our freedoms for a “maybe.”
BTW -I have opted to give my body to UT medical school. Heaven knows the budding surgeons need all the practice they can get…. ????
Once again Dowd, you keep saying ya got it but you don’t got it. Pressing constant hysteria into the undeveloped minds of children and adolescents to gain political brownie points is just fear mongering, not science.
When every prediction has been wrong, when every “model” has failed, when every “expert” has changed his mind over the years then global warming isn’t a problem. We’re still here and there has been no appreciable change in our lives, environment or climate that can be considered earth shaking nor even directly pin pointed to man causation.
If you clowns were consistent people would listen. If you’d stop making predictions than don’t pan out people would listen. If you’d use actual provable science not scare tactics people would listen. If you’d stop calling us name because we disagree and trying to penalize us for not conforming to your every desire people would listen. If you’d stop saying stupid shit like “the science is settled” or “97% of scientists whose salary depends on agreeing” agree about global warming people may listen. But as long as you guys sound like a traveling medicine show we won’t.
No, you don’t get it and you never will.
FJB.
What evidence, J?
“A trend studied closely by leading scientists”. There’s two steps here-first, observing a trend. Second, and more importantly, proving a cause-effect relationship between the trend and CO2. Most alarmists, of course, stop at “there’s a trend!”.
I don’t even read Global Warming nonsense…so it doesn’t make anything worse for me.
Maybe not making things worse but you have created this. Talk about anal.
Yuck!
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/world-naked-bike-ride-bright-27208853#comments-wrapper
#LetsGoBrandon
#8.6%Inflation
Bwaha! Lolgf
First of all are they really certain that oil is a fossil fuel? Isn’t it entirely possible that methane in the core gets heated, pressurized and pushed to the crust and congeals into oil?
Second, how did the glaciers as far down as Texas melt ? Two miles of ice melted before we discovered fire. AGW? Negatory Spiff.
Third, the “carbon footprint” of a single bison pretty much dwarfs a modern car. With the bison running 24/7 he’s pumping out methane and CO2 all the time. And there were millions of them. Maybe billions. There was no AGW then.
Fourth, which scientists. Are they funded by WEF who has a very obvious agenda? Did algore invent the econet now? Does the Sierra Club put $$ into it. I don’t trust any of those jackasses, everything that comes out of their mouths is a lie.
Fifth, what about the imminent geomagnetic flip that they’re talking about? Wouldn’t re-orienting the earth’s massive, hot, spinning core create some climatological changes. And shouldn’t we be preparing the population for a potential swing the other way.
AGW is not science, not in any way. It’s all about control and it’s all propaganda.
The numbers just don’t add up
One, Methane in the 10,000F core turning into coal, oil and gas? Interesting hypothesis.
Two, Glaciers in Texas? When was that? Note too that over the past million years or so the Earth has been subject to alternate periods of glacial and interglacial (were are in the interglacial Holocene Epoch now). The transitions from glacial to interglacial are consistent with changes in the orbit and inclination of the Earth relative to the Sun, but not with SUV use.
Three, Does a bison really emit more “carbon” than an auto? There’s a small piece of the carbon cycle you may not understand. ALL the carbon that a bison consumes comes from plants which had recently derived their own carbon from the atmosphere (that whole photosynthesis thingy). ALL the carbon Mr Bison emits is from the plants he ate! NO net emission of “carbon”. Mr F-150 gets his carbon from fossil fuels locked under the Earth for tens of millions of years!! All new CO2 to bathe the atmosphere. That’s why burning fossil fuels adds more CO2 to the atmosphere than does wildlife.
Four, Few conservatives “trust” scientists, especially scientists that undermine deeply held feelings. The Earth revolves around the Sun?? Heresy! The Earth is over 4 billion years old? Heresy! Conservatives “believe” scientists who tell that what they wish to hear.
Five, The Earth’s magnetic field appears to flip every 200,000 to 300,000 years, the last thought to be about 42,000 years ago. The magnetic field permits life on Earth. How should we a) prevent a “flip” or 2) prepare for the unlikely “flip”?
Dear Elwood:
You write: “You assume that ice sheets, etc read Dr Spencer’s articles. Evidently the physical world is not paying enough attention to you…… skeptics!”
That is exactly Dr Spenser’s point. The studies all assume no input beyond what mankind provides….
“The most important thing to remember about climate models which are used to project future global warming is that they were “tuned” with the assumption I started this article with: that the climate system is in a natural state of energy balance, and that there is no long-term climate change unless humans cause it.”
We know that volcanoes eruptions cause cooling. Sun spots, or lack of them, effect cloud cover. The ocean currents can change if a large enough earthquake happened.. etc., etc.
So studies are essentially worthless except to get more money from the suckers and power to do what you want..
None of the forecasts have proven right. NONE. Could one? Sure, but us reasonable headed folks don’t want to give up our freedoms for a “maybe.”
BTW -I have opted to give my body to UT medical school. Heaven knows the budding surgeons need all the practice they can get…. ;-)