The Great Global Warming---A.K.A. "Climate Change"---A.K.A. "Climate Emergency"---Post!

This is mainly a catch up post for new readers who won’t recall the old days.

Listen to the podcast at YouTube, BitChute, or Gab. I’m late on this!

STATE OF THE WEATHER

You will naturally have noticed the increase in global warming posts. Which they now call “climate change”.

I used to believe in global warming, the story of which I put in How I Became A Renegade Scientist. I won’t repeat any of that here. But I do want to emphasize certain other points of science from the old days that are going to arise.

Nobody can, or should, believe in “climate change”. The reason is simple: “global warming” had a definite meaning; “climate change” doesn’t mean anything. Rather, it means whatever each listener wants to mean each time they hear it. It functions like “racism” does outside science.

That global warming became “climate change” is one reason, but not the most important reason, that I lost, and why you should lose, confidence in global warming. Let’s discuss that before the review.

It is true that in the early days of climatology a majority of scientists were concerned about global cooling and the looming ice age. This was exacerbated to some degree because of fears of nuclear winter. See The Horrible Predictions Of Climate Change.

Global cooling had its brief, albeit modest, fame. But the weather failed to cooperate. It got warmer, and then we had “global warming”. Everybody remembers that.

But again, alas, the weather failed its alleged masters. And that’s when we got this mysterious thing called “climate change”.

“CLIMATE CHANGE”

All (and not just a consensus of) scientists agree that the climate of the earth has changed before, that it is changing now, and that it will continue changing until the last trump. The temperature, its geographic and altitudinal distributions, the oceans, precipitation, everything—none of it has remained constant. All is ever in flux. The processes of change are inexorable: it cannot be stopped.

So it is perplexing to hear demands to “Fight climate change!” You may as well scream “Battle gravity!” or “War against electromagnetism!” You will achieve the same result.

The objection will be that is the human contributions to climate change that must be battled: that ought to be stopped or minimized.

It cannot be stopped. That is an impossibility. Not while people live. It can be minimized, but only in the same sense that it can be stopped. Which is to say, you must eliminate people to stop or minimize human contributions to a changing climate.

Any other argument about human contribution involves uncertain costs and benefits of amorphous actions, all of which rely on the quality of models and trust in politicians. More on models in a moment.

Meanwhile, the term “climate change” became a cudgel. Any bad weather event was called “climate change”. And not just weather events, but really bad events of all kinds were, and are, being tied to “climate change.”

Nothing good, though: “climate change” is incapable of any good. It is purely bad. It is always frightening, something which must be avoided at all costs.

“Climate change” thus serves the same purpose as wily unscrupulous evil gods did in pagan religions.

This is why nobody should “believe” in “climate change.” It does not mean anything fixed. It does not describe something that can be stopped.

DENIER!

“Climate change”, while still around, is falling out of popularity. They tried out “climate disruption” and a host of other apocalyptic terms as replacements, settling (for now) on “climate crisis.”

There is no climate crisis.

Which brings up “climate denier”. My answer when confronted with this is to always say, “Yes, I deny there is a climate.” This usually leaves the yeller perplexed. The reason is simple.

Because “denying” “climate change” has nothing to do with denying the climate changes, which, as said, everybody accepts. It means only that you do not want the “solutions” to the “crisis”, “solutions” the “Denier!”-crier badly wants.

Here’s a speech I did on this (this was seven years ago, and I’d change a bit here and there, but the core idea about true believers is sound): YouTube Link.

REMEMBER THIS

A small increase in global average temperature means almost nothing, and even less than nothing (i.e. it’s a benefit), which is all that global warming promised us.

If “climate change” is a threat, it is only because of those things that are affected by the changing weather, and not the small averaged temperature increase.

But those things affected by the weather are necessarily less certain than changes in the weather, which are themselves uncertain. The whole—the claims of “climate change” married to the bad things said will happen—must therefore necessarily be less certain than “climate change” itself.

If you haven’t already, read these:

• Why You Don’t Have To Worry About Climate Change: Multiplication Of Uncertainties

• Researchers Claim “Climate Change” Causes Currency Vulnerability: An Instance Of Forgotten Uncertainties

• How To Generate Massive Scientific Over-Certainty With These Four Simple Tricks

• CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS FROM A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE

The last is a talk I gave at the Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales in Madrid in 2008. I did a poor job, unnecessarily making things complex by introducing math. The basic idea was sound, but the method of communicating it was not.

BAD SCIENCE & STATISTICS

Now some highlights of the worst and badly over-confident science. We’ve done hundreds of articles over the last decade, and we’ve seen certain patterns. First, No: climatology is not a pseudoscience.

Consensuses (or is it consensii?):

• Consensus in science (best!)

• More On How Peer Review Generates And Maintains Consensuses

• The Consensus That Wasn’t: Less Than 1%, Not 97%

• Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation

Time series are handled very, very baldy—not just in global warming, but everywhere. Here are some favorites:

• Do not smooth times series, you hockey puck!

• Demonstration of how smoothing causes inflated certainty

• Do not calculate correlations after smoothing data

• Hurricanes have not increased: misuse of running means

• Do NOT smooth time series before computing forecast skill

• Let’s Try This Time Series Thing Again (a five-parter)

• How To Cheat, Or Fool Yourself, With Time Series: Climate Example

• The Data Is The Data, Not The Model: With Climatology Time Series Example

• Time Series And Causality: Global Warming Example

• Netherlands Temperature Controversy: Or, Yet Again, How Not To Do Time Series

Another is in complexity of temperature observations and estimations:

• Global Average Temperature: An Exceedingly Brief Introduction To Bayesian Predictive Inference

• Homogenization of temperature series (why it goes bad)

• Why Reconstructed Temperatures Via Proxies Are Misleading

• What BEST Means And What It Doesn’t

• BEST’s Worst Work; What Is Significant?

• Don’t Say “Natural Variability”

• D.J. Keenan’s And My BEST Methodology Reviews

• Global Average Temperature: What It Isn’t

• How To Properly Handle Proxy Time Series Reconstructions

• Signal + Noise vs. Signal

• How to look at the RSS satellite-derived temperature data

• Are Tree Rings Low Pass Temperature Filters?

• NOAA Whistleblower Claims Data Were ‘Adjusted’ to Make Global Warming Seem Worse

• What is—and what isn’t—evidence of global warming

• That “1-in-27 Million Chance That Earth’s Record Hot Streak Is Natural” Is Preposterous

Don’t even get me started on dust, a.k.a. PM2.5:

• The EPA, Dust, And The Ecological Fallacy

• Criticism of Jerrett et al. CARB PM2.5 And Mortality Report

• Road Rage: Paper Says Living Near Road Causes Dementia

• The Epidemiologist Fallacy Strikes Again: Premature Birth Rate Edition

• PM2.5 Isn’t As Scary As We’ve Been Told

• The Epidemiologist Fallacy Strikes Again. EPA, CARB, And Air Pollution

Every bad things is caused by climate change. Here is only a scant sampling of the hundreds of papers we have reviewed:

• Science Says Global Warming To Cause More Heart Attacks At Night, But Only For Crazy Men 60-64.

• Mental Illness To Increase Due To Climate Change

• Global Warming Increases Disastrous Music: A Scientific Paper

• Paper Claims Surprisingly Strong Link Between Climate Change And Violence

• Global warming causes prostitution!

• Zombie attacks might increase due to global warming, study shows (for some reason this was one of the biggest posts ever)

“Deniers” and our Expertocracy.

• How The Expertocracy Builds Consensus & You Become A Denier

• The Six Kinds Of “Climate Deniers”, As Defined By Experts

• How Bad Science Becomes The Science

• Elena Kagan’s Blind Love Of The Expertocracy: SCOTUS Slaps The EPA

• Long Live The Expertocracy. Burnham’s The Managerial Revolution at 80

• Climate Denial And Slavery

• Death To Those Who Call For Death For Climate Change Denial!

Models and attributions:

• Why Models Run Hot: Results From An Irreducibly Simple Climate Model

• GWPF: How the IPCC Sees What Isn’t There

• Climate Attribution Studies Can’t Be Trusted

• How Good Is That Model? Scoring Rules For Forecasts

• Models Only Say What They’re Told to Say

• Why multiple climate model agreement is not that exciting

• Attack Of The Black Swans From Outer Space! (another Taleb fantasty)

• Climate Model Uncertainty

• CO2 and Temperature: which predicts which?

• Model Selection and the Difficulty of Falsifying Probability Models

• Lancet Says 1 in 6 Worldwide Deaths by Pollution: 67% More Than Coronadoom

• Overstretching Climate Change Attribution

• I have a cameo in Climate Hustle, and Climate Hustle 2.

The bizarre:

• Bioengineering Humans To Combat Climate Change

• Another Academic Calls For Shorter People To Battle Global Warming

There are many, many more. To find them, try the Classic Post page, or the search—which doesn’t work as well for old posts, since my old site was hacked (as described in the Renegade post linked above).

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.