Category Archives: Climate Models

“Climate Warming has been cut in half over the past 5 years”- Part 2 Former Numbers were implausible.


Judith Curry is an eminent scientist and a skeptic. Most of the discussion in this posting, comes from her blog Climate, ETC., titled: “The climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be”.

Growing realization by the climate establishment that the threat of future warming has been cut in half over the past 5 years.

Summary:  The climate “catastrophe” isn’t what it used to be. Circa 2013 with publication of the IPCC AR5* Report, RCP8.5 was regarded as the business-as-usual emissions scenario, with expected warming of 4 to 5 oC by 2100. Now there is growing acceptance that RCP8.5 is implausible, and RCP4.5 is arguably the current business-as-usual emissions scenario. Only a few years ago, an emissions trajectory that followed RCP4.5 with 2 to 3 oC warming was regarded as climate policy success. As limiting warming to 2 oC seems to be in reach (now deemed to be the “threshold of catastrophe”),[i] the goal posts were moved in 2018 to reduce the warming target to 1.5 oC. Climate catastrophe rhetoric now seems linked to extreme weather events, most of which are difficult to identify any role for human-caused climate change in increasing either their intensity or frequency.

The main stream media is currently awash with articles from prominent journalists on how the global warming threat less than we thought.  Here are some prominent articles:

  At the heart of this good news is abandonment of RCP8.5 from UNFCCC policy making. The hero of science behind this abandonment is Justin Ritchie, a recent Ph.D. graduate (whose work has been cited.

The COP26 and now the COP27 have quietly dropped RCP8.5 (and SSP5-8.5) from their considerations, focusing on the envelope between RCP4.5 and RCP2.6.  The grand poohbahs of the IPCC apparently didn’t see this coming (or preferred to keep spinning the alarm), since they instructed climate modelers for CMIP6 to continue a focus on SSP5-8.5, and climate researchers continue to focus on this scenario in their impacts publications.  The IPCC AR6 prominently featured SSP5-8.5, although WGI did make this lukewarm statement

The second so-called scientific advance is lower values of climate sensitivity.  The so-called advance is associated with the IPCC AR6 decision NOT to include values derived from climate models (which have dominated previous IPCC reports). They implicitly acknowledge that climate models are running too hot and that you can pretty much get whatever value of climate sensitivity that you want from a climate model (this has been blindingly obvious to me and many others for over a decade).  The IPCC AR6 lowered the upper likely bound of ECS to 4.0oC (from 4.5oC previously); this further acts to reduce the amount of projected warming.  The IPCC AR6 also raised the lower likely bound of ECS to 2.5oC (from 1.5oC).  Raising the lower bound of ECS is on very shaky ground, as per the recent publication by Nic Lewis 

The COP27 is working from a value of expected warming of 2.5oC by 2100.  This is arguably still too high for several reasons.  IPCC expert judgment dismissed values of climate sensitivity that are on the lower end (that should not have been dismissed as per Nic Lewis’ paper). Further, the IPCC projections do not adequately account for scenarios of future natural climate variability.  See these recent posts:

https://judithcurry.com/2022/01/23/crossing-or-not-the-1-5-and-2-0oc-thresholds/

https://judithcurry.com/2021/11/21/solar-variations-controversy/

In addition to an insufficient number of solar and volcanic scenarios, the climate models ignore most solar indirect effects, and the climate model treatment of multidecadal and longer internal variability associated with ocean circulations are inadequate.  While in principle these factors could go either way in terms of warmer vs cooler, there are several reasons to think these natural factors are skewed towards cooler during the remainder of the 21st century:

  • Baseline volcanic activity since 1850 has been unusually low
  • Most solar researchers expect some sort of solar minimum in the mid to late 21st century
  • Solar indirect effects are inadequately treated by climate models, which would act to amplify solar cooling
  • A shift to the cold phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is expected in the next decade, which influences not only global temperatures but also Greenland mass balance and Arctic sea ice.

Once you include alternative scenarios of natural variability, temperature change by 2100 could easily be below 2oC and even 1.5oC.  Recall that this warming is with reference to a baseline of 1850-1900; 1.1oC warming has already occurred.

*AR stands for Assessment Report. These are based upon the content in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) full reports, assembled by working groups.   AR6 is the most recent report. The reputation of the ARs is in dispute. The full report, the 6th, is condensed to an AR6.  The dispute is that many nonscientific personnel, such as delegates from industry, NGOs, etc. can force change that make the AR inconsistent with the full report.

cbdakota

Challenging the Alarmist’s Climate Crisis. —- Part 1 Background


The alarmist’s climate crisis is encountering some serious headwinds.  Not just from we skeptics but also from the ranks of the man-made global warming adherents. This posting will be to set the table for the subsequent postings that will illustrate the headwinds.   Another posting that will illustrate the profound damage that the crisis crowd are doing to the young people will also be posted.   

I posted in April 2021 how the alarmist’s computer forecasts were biased. Two concepts are the primary tools that the computer operators use to make predictions of future temperatures.  One is the representative concentration pathway (RCP) and the other is the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)

RCP

Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is an estimate of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time.

The chart below shows the range of RCPs the computer programmer can use. The chart has RCPs portraying the forecasted amount of accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere out to the year 2100.  The chart has a bit of dialog as well.  More on this will appear in the upcoming posting on this topic.

ECS

Theory is that temperature will rise approximately 1C due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Further, the CO2 induced increase in temperature will result in creating water vapor.  Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. That and some other minor changes in atmospheric gases will result in an additional rise of 2C.   Thus, CO2 doubling does not just create 1C rise but rather a 3C rise.   

ECS is controversial.   There are those that do not believe in the CO2 effect at all.  They may not appreciate this postings discussion of ECS and RCP, but the posting is addressing what the Alarmist believe. Most buy into the concept but conclude that the effect is much less than a 3C rise,  

This is how the ECS theory works. Surface warming due to doubling of the atmospheric CO2.  Going from the nominal 400ppm atmospheric CO2 to 800ppm would result in 3C rise. But other test data says it is less.

                                           Jonova chart

The computer programmer puts in the RCP and the ECS.  He can get whatever temperature forecast he wants. 

cbdakota

Biden Wants to Pay Climate Reparations. I Hope His Handlers Say He Really Did Not Mean It.


From Politico’s bog: “New U.S. message on climate change: Make China pay.”  Is our President out of his mind— wait, wait, I guess that is already answered.  He says the US will pay reparations if China does.  

First of all, why would he think the US taxpayer should pay reparations. Why not ask the underdeveloped nations to pay reparations for our medical discoveries, our thousands of inventions that have made their life easier, our pitching in to save starving people that routinely occur in Africa, etc.

Moreover, reparations are hard to get right. China and India, combined, are emitting more CO2 than the rest of the world. Every nation in the world has been using some level of fossil fuel. Would we get to reduce our reparations payments for that?

Secondly, China will not do reparations. And thank God for that because if they did, Biden then would have us hoisted by his own petard.

And the third reason is that there is no crisis.  It is an invention by the alarmists and the Great Reset group. Is the world warming?  Yes, because the UAH satellite global temperature measurements tell me that.  

For at least the last million years, the globe cycles, roughly, every 100,000 years between cold and warm. Does that without any SUVs on the road, by the way.

But I do not believe the alarmist’s computer forecasts of future temperatures. Those forecasts have always exceeded the actual global temperatures. The alarmists recognize this. That is why they changed the narrative from “global warming” to “climate change”. But still, they use those faulty forecasts.

And how do they know that we are really, really going to be sorry if, since the year 1890 until now the global temperature will have increased more than 1.5C. Their ability to make accurate predictions has been non-existent. Why should we believe this one? 

So, the answer is too back off global catastrophe predictions and focus on doing adaptation when and if necessary.  In the meantime, the Earth will continue to green because of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

cbdakota

Global Warming Temperature Predictions are Biased and Wrong.


The forecast global temperatures are the basis of the catastrophic global warming theory.  The alarmists use temperature as the goal post when they tell us that the global temperature since 1890 must not rise more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.  They say if the temperature exceeds that number, it could mean Armageddon. Surely you have heard them tell us that we have about 10 more years to live if we don’t act now.  And telling our young people learning in schools that their life span is going to be very short.

So shouldn’t everyone be versed in how the forecasts of global temperatures are derived by the alarmists.

The alarmists have a bunch of computers with various settings that proport to be able to capture the vast number of variables that produce the Earth’s temperature.  In fact, almost none of them provide a comparable forecast into the future. When plotted out the projections by the many computers looks like bed of spaghetti.

All the squiggly lines are individual computer forecasts. The Red line is the average global warming temperatures predicted by the computers.  The lower Green straight line is the mean of the actual measured temperature for this same period.  Note that as the years go by, the computer forecast gets further away from the actual measured temperature. 

As aside observation, can you imagine what each line would look like if not mixed in with all the others.  Can you imagine how much confidence you would have for a computer that predicted temperatures that would rise and drop so precipitously over very short times.  Real temperatures don’t do that.

In science, it is said that if you have a theory and you make predictions from it and it does not match actual results, your theory is WRONG, So the alarmist’s temperature forecasts are wrong and should NOT be used to make public policy.

I have worked at this topic a number of times. Pretty much the same narrative.  Secrets That Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know https://wordpress.com/post/cb-dakota.com/108-Part 3 Biased Computers is a posting that shows how the computer programmers can make the temperature forecast hotter. 

Cbdakota

The chart was made by Dr. John Christy.  On many occasions he has given testimony before Congress.   

Secrets That Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know–Part 3 Biased Computers


In the previous postings,  the computers predicting global temperatures were shown to be much higher than the actual measured temperatures  and that you are not being told that the actual measured global temperatures are currently falling and do not seem to have a link with the rising CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere. This posting looks at the future predictions of global temperatures and how they are biased to make you think they are going to be rising quickly.

To have some understanding how the computers are programed one needs to be acquainted with Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP).

ECS

 Firstly, an examination of ECS.   The 1979 Charney Report, named for the Chairman of an Ad Hoc group stated:  

 “We believe, therefore, that the equilibrium surface global warming due to doubled CO2 will be in the range IC to 4C, with the most probable value near 3°C”.

 That means, for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, global temperature will rise approximately 1C due to CO2, and the CO2 induced increase in temperature will result in more water vapor.  Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. That and some other minor changes in atmospheric gases will result in an additional rise of 2C.   Thus, CO2 doubling does not just create 1C rise but rather a 3C rise.  They acknowledged that there was a lot of uncertainty about this number. How water vapor and clouds interact are not yet known with any certainty.   

Climate sensitivity is expressed two ways. Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) is the initial effect of the change in CO2 concentration. ECS does not happen until the oceans heat come into equilibrium with atmospheric heat, for example. 

ECS is controversial.   There are those that do not believe in the CO2 effect at all.  They may not appreciate this postings discussion of ECS and RCP but the posting is addressing what the Alarmists believe.  Also, many others buy into the concept but conclude that the effect is much lower than the 3C rise due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.  Down as low as 1C.  As well, there are alarmists that use ECS in the 4C range.

As can be seen in the Part 1 posting, the ECS being used has yielded too high of global temperatures.

Tests of the new CMIP-6 climate computer programs conducted by McKitrick and Christy reported:     Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers – McKitrick – 2020 – Earth and Space Science – Wiley Online Library

It has long been known that previous generations of climate models exhibit excessive warming rates in the tropical troposphere. With the release of the CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6) climate model archive we can now update the comparison. We examined historical (hindcast) runs from 38 CMIP6 models in which the models were run using historically observed forcings. We focus on the 1979–2014 interval, the maximum for which all models and observational data are available and for which the models were run with historical forcings. What was previously a tropical bias is now global. All model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and midtroposphere, in the tropics, and globally. On average, and in most individual cases, the trend difference is significant. Warming trends in models tend to rise with the model Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), and we present evidence that the distribution of ECS values across the model is unrealistically high.”

If you are a climate computer programmer, you can increase the ECS, and it will result in an increase in forecast temperature.

RCP

Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is an estimate of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time.  After studying numerous scenarios, more than the available computer time would allow, they settled on just 5 RCPs.

It is my understanding that the upcoming IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report will use somewhat revised versions of the original 5 pathways. These revisions are to accommodate current thinking about the options and potential pathways. Only RCP 8.5 remains as orginally conceived. At least one of the pathways will meet Paris Agreement goal of of keeping global temperature rise below 1.5C . In between 1.5 and 8.5are three others that do not meet the objective but are considered potential outcomes depending on mitigation policies. The pathways keep track of the forecast fossil fuel emissions of CO2” versus “years” beginning at the current time continuing out to the year 2100.  


The alarmists and many other warmers are using RCP8.5 as Business As Usual.  Most are not notifying the reader that the forecast CO2 in the atmosphere for their predicted temperatures is the HIGHLY UNLIKELY pathway. Some postings have said that it is physically impossible, requiring such things as all the minable coal would have to be burned. What does this amount to?   The alarmists are using the Highest CO2 concentration.  They are also using a Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity that historically is too high.   This combination will deliver Highly Unlikely predicted global temperatures.    They need to scare you into going along with the alarmist’s program.

Some scientists and engineers do not believe that carbon dioxide emissions and other so-called greenhouse gases are causing global temperature to rise.  My guess is that most of the scientists and engineers believe that those gases do influence the globe’s temperature.  Within the believing group, however, there is a divide as to how much temperature rise can be attributed to the greenhouse gases.  (Your host, cbdakota, is an agnostic skeptic that believes that on-the- whole, the sun is in control).

From a recent Dr. Roy Spencer blog:

Yes, more CO2 must produce some warming. But the amount of warming makes all the difference to global energy policies.
Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us.
Why does it matter?
It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency.
Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist).
But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life.

Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.

Now take this to your children to read.
cbdakota

Secrets That Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know –Part 1 Climate Models


A dramatic global temperature rise has been forecasts by the alarmists for decades.  Sea level is forecast to reach record heights as the globe’s ice melts.  At every opportunity they tell us that any major storm or weather disruption is due to rising temperature.  We are told that this rise in temperature must be stopped.  A little more than degree C has the potential to be existential.  How do they know this?  Their climate computers tell them.  These computers tell them that the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of fossil fuel will wreak this havoc.

The good news is that these computer forecasts of dramatic temperature rise are disproven by actual measurements of global temperature.

One of the recent examinations of the latest batch of climate computers (CMIP-6) was conducted by McKitrick and Christy. 

The above is a screen capture is from a Zoom lecture given by John Christy.   The upper straight line is the mean temperature forecast of the CMIP-6 and historical forecasts made by earlier computer models. The lower Green straight line is the mean of the actual measured temperature for this same period.  The two lines , computer and observed global temperature trends,  intersecting at zero in 1979 and based on 1979 to 2019 only.

The actual  temperature measurements are a blend of satellite and  radiosondes (weather balloons)  .  They confirm one another.

These are the predictions from which generate their alarming pronouncements. They are not reality.    

Science News, for 2/29/20  carries an article titled “Earth’s hot future” and subtitled “As climate models improve, worst-case scenarios are hard to pin down.” The subtitle does not inspire confidence is the predictions.  Then the article talks about how good these models are but they are missing an important piece of knowledge, that being the impact of clouds on climate.  

 Note the jumble the computer ensemble produce.  The individual computers shoot up and then drive downward with a vengeance.  If you could see it clearly, you would reject its output. Real temperatures do not swing that wildly.  So they put all the computer’s output together to average out a mean. The one consistent feature of these computers is that they all show rising temperatures.  Is  that  a “man-made” program bias having little to do with the science? (If the climate computers worked, they would only need one model, not dozens.)   

Another way of visualizing this is the following chart:

The forecast from the computers is for warming to rise at +0.40C per decade.   The observed (actual) warming has been +0.17C per decade. 

Christy says about the performance of the Climate Models used by the warmers:

”You know in any other science, if you have a period of time you’re testing and you go through the first period and you’re already off by a factor of two and a half, on the rate of warming.

You say I better stop i’m going to go back and see if I can fix something that isn’t the way and climate moms they let it go, because the scary story is the one that seems to get the most attention.”

The  charts are from an ICSF Zoom Meeting featuring John Christy as the main speaker. The link is ICSF Zoom Meeting – Zoom.           You will need a password  and it is    S+R$j6N%. 

 The  Christy and McKitrick format for the tests of the CMIP-6 can be found on this website   Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers (wiley.com).

The computers +0.40C per decade imply that the global temperature would increase  by 1.2C by 2050’s.  The alarmists target is to achieve net zero CO2 by that date.

Dr Roy Spencer’s recent posting reviews sea surface temperature versus  climate computer prediction.   He shows a chart that demonstrates that “Global Ocean Temperatures are Warming at Only ~50% the Rate of Climate Model Projections”.   It is another good gauge showing how the alarmists are not playing it straight.  He wraps up his posting with the following :

Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us.

Why does it matter?

It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency.

Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist).

But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life.

Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.”

The climate predicting computers overstate the global temperatures by a wide margin as can be seen when compared to actual temperature measurements. Alarmists use them to put fear in to the pubic. Their predictions should never be used for making policy.

OK, now show this to your kids.

cbdakota

Alamists Have the Media on Their Side.


I have been consulting or blogging about climate change for some 20+ years.  I began in an advisory role to a member of Delaware’s Legislative body.  That followed by setting up a climate change website.  Alas, I gotten older.  My zeal has not changed but my reduced stamina for research has resulted fewer postings.  And my level of frustration is peaking.

Unfortunately, one thing is unchanging.  That is the alarmists’ predictions are way over the top. I mean by that, their global temperature forecasts, principally made by their computers, are always higher than the measured temperature.  Their statements pronouncing that things are worse that they ever have been, like tornados, hurricanes, droughts, sea level rise, disappearance of the polar ice, end of snow, etc. are refuted by the data regarding those issues.  

I believe that the number of skeptics has increased over those 20+ years, thanks to the increase in number of outstanding skeptic blogs, like WUWT, Icecap, Climate Depot, Principia Scientific, Junk Science, DrRoySpencer, SePP, GWPF and a whole host of other outstanding ones—-just too many to name.

But the skeptics still have trouble getting through the walls erected by the mainstream media. Why the media have dropped their investigative role and adopted a full- throated support for the alarmist is beyond my ability to understand.  Because the predictions of apocalypse by apocalypse made by the alarmers that have not come true, you would think that the media would treat the continuing barrage of over-the-top predictions with distain.  Instead, the predictions get headlines and sycophantic stories.

The alarmist’s kind of “science” should not be the basis for formulating legislation.  Politicians may be good lawyers, but they are typically poor scientists.  Some are opposed to capitalism and want socialism.  Look at President Biden’s Green New Deal site and you will find many of them.  Others are swayed by the media pressure and think they better go along with the crowd.  Some may actually believe the alarmists rants.  Very few of them are scientifically knowledgeable enough to see through the scam.  Today, I do not have confidence that a majority of the Senate Republicans are skeptics.  

The science is not settled so no new legislation, please!

It seems to me that there are only a few things that will swing the pendulum our way.  One is a decline in the living standards and the economy.  Higher prices for everything caused by the cost of electricity, the cost of gasoline, the cost of home heating, and generally the subsequent rise of the cost of living. These are issues that the typical citizen feels and that might change the politicians.

As former President Obama said, 

 Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket – YouTube

The other pendulum swinger is for the global temperature to go flat or begin to drop.  The global temperature went flat for about 15 to 18 years around the turn of the century.  It began to climb again when two El Ninos happened.  They are natural causes, not atmospheric CO2 concentration.  

I have been researching what may bring about big cost of living rises and what are the factors that will cause global temperature to rise or fall in the future.   If I can get something cogent on those two topics, I will post my thoughts.

cbdakota

Biden Green Plan Costs $1.7 trillion and Reduces Global Temp 0.1C


Let’s see how you answer this question—Yes,  No.

“It worth it for the American taxpayers to pay $1.7 trillion to lower the Earth’s temperature by 0.1C (0.18F) “

 If you answered YES, I dub you Captain “Gullible”.    Oh, by the way, maybe  you would like to buy some of my ocean front property in Arizona.

The $1.7 trillion is the cost estimate of Joe Biden’s planed phase out of fossil fuels in the US.  The Biden plan would lower the global temperature by 0.1C as calculated by the Alarmist’s Climate Action Tracker.

All of this comes from the pages of the UK Guardian newspaper. This newspaper is perhaps the world’s biggest media supporter of the climate change alarmism.  The stated cost and the results are Guardian’s bona fide.

My guess is that when 2050 arrives, there are three likely outcomes. 

Outcome A

The plan was dropped after it was clear that no apocalypse was going to happen.

The Alarmist’s computers that predict the future temperatures have been much higher than the actual temperature measurements.  The Alarmists are alarmists because they refuse to recognize the facts that their   computers are flawed.

See posting Michael Shellenberger Exposes Global Warming Alarmists”

Outcome B

The plan was dropped because it was too costly and that adaptation, if necessary, was deemed less costly.

Let’s assume that in 30 to 70 (2050 to 2100) years, sea levels rise several feet, mankind would have the capability to adapt to the change.  It would not happen overnight, but rather slowly over years.  And the odds are that equally good that it will not raise several feet. 

Outcome C

The plan was dropped when the West realized the Chinese were never planning to follow any carbon reduction program.  Consequently, China dominated the globes economy because their energy costs were vastly lower, and it was more reliable than the nations of the West’s energy.

Wind and Solar will be deemed failures.  They are unreliable and must be backed up. Currently, it is necessary to have fossil fuel-based production facilities that can supply the demand reliably.   During this time as more wind and solar are added, the price of electricity would “skyrocket” (as predicted by Former President Obama.)  China has world domination as their target.  The Biden plan will be a big help to the Chinese toward realization of their objective.   

Ultimately, nuclear energy-based electricity production will become the major source.  The alarmist does not want nuclear to succeed as they have seen it as a threat to imposition of wind and solar.

I see anyone of the three as likely to happen.  Maybe it will be all of them will be realized and that will cause the Biden plan to be dropped.   

And a commonsense addition—-  how many people are going to believe the stopping a global temperature rise of just 0.18F as worth S1.7trillion is worth it? Less that one fifth of one degree!  Or even necessary!

cbdakota

Are Our Political Leadership Ignorant Of Global Warming Science?


Is the inherent ignorance of global warming science in our political leadership leading us over the cliff?  A posting on WattsUpWithThat by Dr Tim Ball tells us that, with the exception of President Trump, these leaders are weak, ignorant, and pandering  .  Ball’s views are as follows:

World Leaders’ Ignorance About Climate Change Continues Despite Simple, Obvious Evidence.

 Guest Blogger / May 18, 2019 Guest opinion Dr. Tim Ball “

To be able to fill leisure intelligently is the last product of civilization.” Arnold Toynbee

Until Trump, and very obviously with his exception, weak, ignorant, pandering, people lead the western nations. They want leadership positions but with no intention of doing the job, or, for that matter, any talent to do it. We are a long way from Toynbee’s “last product of civilization.” Worse, we are moving further away every day. What can you say about America, supposedly the most advanced civilization in the world, with a regular TV program about 600-pound people in prime time? Is that filling leisure intelligently? What can you conclude about western leaders listening to and, worse, heeding Swedish teenager, Greta Thuneberg about climate change who claims she can see carbon dioxide in the air? This skill may be because she is a 16- year old child who, regrettably, has Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and Asperger’s Syndrome. We know this because her mother, who needs for child abuse, told us so in the family book ‘Scenes from the heart. Our life for the climate.’ Historically, it was a child who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes. Now the ill-informed, used and abused, children are pointing out the emperor is wearing a cloak of green.

None of this is surprising as the world moves past madness into insanity. A US Senator, Elizabeth Warren, is running for President. This after admitting she claimed a nonexistent native heritage to jump the line at Harvard Law School and to get called to the Bar. There is another Senator also a lawyer, Richard Blumenthal, sitting on the Judiciary Committee where he cynically sits in judgment of other people’s truth and credibility. He claimed involvement in live combat in Vietnam when he was never even in the country. How can such exposed and admitted liars continue to retain positions of power?

Sadly, it is easy, have you watched debates and proceedings in any legislative body from the US Congress, through the British Parliament and beyond. It is a zoo of childish one-upmanship and petty name-calling, but what makes it worse is they think it is clever. No wonder the ratings of all such bodies are so low.

The major reason for the problem of poor leadership is that natural leaders, who are born, not nurtured, know the populace is not ready to be led. They also know that anybody who steps forward to lead immediately becomes the target of a media who believes its divine function is to destroy anybody and everybody. Understandably, they are not prepared to put their heads on the media chopping block. The impact on society is more than the loss leadership. This creates a vacuum that is almost immediately filled by people who want to lead but have nothing but ambition. These people want the job but lack the skills. They say whatever you want to hear or what they think you want to hear. The sincerity is as thin as the ability. Most of these are the people that Daniel Boorstin identified as being famous for being famous. They are so shallow that they are more vulnerable than most to misinformation and false stories that can become the basis of a political campaign. The biggest of these is the human-caused climate change issue. They, along with everybody else, didn’t understand it, but they deliberately exploited it. Everybody thought climate change was a problem, they didn’t care because it was a superb political opportunity.

A Yale University test on climate titled “American’s Knowledge of Climate Change” proved it. The test was designed to find out

from a national study of what Americans understand about how the climate system works, and the causes, impacts, and potential solutions to global warming.

The test given to 2030 American adults resulted in catastrophic results. A full 77% of them achieved a grade of only D or F (52%). I know from 50 years of talking to and dealing with politicians at all levels that their knowledge is as bad. In one way it is worse because politicians take stronger, more definitive positions that preclude an open mind.

Continue reading

Michael Shellenberger Exposes Global Warming Alarmists


The man-made global warming eco-alarmists are composed of a cabal of scientists and bureaucrats that use scare tactics to frighten the public into supporting them.  Their objective is to destroy capitalism and replace it with Marxism.  This is fact, not opinion. Their leadership have repeatedly said that their movement is not about environmentalism. To accomplish their objective, for years they have been making predictions designed to frighten the general populace.  The literature is filled with predictions of the apocalypse that have never happened.  One of their most recent one is that the world is doomed in something like 12 years if we do not empower them to do the things they say need to be done.  To these eco-alarmists, the cost of their plans is not an issue.

Why am I highlighting Shellenberger as he is not the only one that has challenged them? First, Shellenberger is a certified environmentalist. He was Time Magazine’s “Hero of the Environment”. He has testified before Congress as an expert and he was invited to be an expert reviewer of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) next Assessment Report.  A summary of his background can be found by clicking here.

Secondly, despite what you may have read, skeptics are not the recipients of large sums of money.  The eco-alarmists are recipients almost all the money spent on global warming.  Anyone that does not toe the line, endangers the alarmist’s incomes.  There are few scientists that are willing to sacrifice their jobs by openly speaking out. Shellenberger insists that he believes in the man-made theory of global warming, but he cannot sit by and let the alarmist poison the scientific dialog. That is unacceptable.

I think that he represents many scientists that do not agree with the alarmists but are afraid to speak their mind.  Perhaps Shellenberger’s example will encourage others to follow his lead.   A Skeptic, on the other hand, might not be able to instill the needed courage.

I have purchased Shellenberger’s book. It is powerful.  I recommend it.  He has developed an outline of his book and the following are excerpts:

Continue reading