Forbes: Climate change alarmist incoherence

Forbes: If They Are So Alarmed By Climate Change, Why Are They So Opposed To Solving It?

Dreams are the end. Fascism is the means. Only intended consequences matter; unintended consequences and reality don't.

Sanders' and Warren's lack of sacrifice

Forbes: Senators Sanders And Warren Strongly Endorse The Benefits Of Private Jet Travel

I don't believe Sanders or Warren is sacrificing or inconveniencing themselves enough. Why are they riding in private jets when commercial flights are available? The Forbes article says they buy carbon offsets, but the payment is probably from campaign funds that other people have contributed, not Sanders' or Warren's personal money. They also preach aplenty about "saving the planet" and against carbon dioxide emissions. Shouldn't they make a greater effort to practice what they preach? Or are they simply taking advantage of their elitist status, which we in the unwashed masses aren't entitled to?

I believe the comparison to CEOs taking private jets is weak. That was 12 years ago when the climate doomsayer talk wasn't so loud, and the CEOs weren't preaching doom.

I plan to make three round trip flights this year. The fares will be paid from my own pocket and the only private jet I have ever used is in my name. 😇

Bernie Sanders is being greedy and stingy with all the campaign money he has amassed, too. Why doesn't he redistribute the wealth to his more needy campaign rival Amy Klobuchar? 😉

NY Times climate change editorial

The NY Times published this op-ed titled "So You Want to Convince a Climate Change Skeptic." In my opinion -- clearly not the publisher's -- it violated the publisher's motto 'All the news that's fit to print.'  At the end is a note that one correction was made. Undisclosed is that the title was also edited -- "Denier" was changed to "Skeptic." For proof see the URL, and "deniers" is still used five times in the body.

Nobody I know of denies climate change. Firstly, there are the four seasons. Secondly, average global temperatures have risen over the past few decades. Thirdly, there have been record cold temperatures in Bangladesh and India recently (link1, link2). But I wouldn't expect the op-ed author to report that. His aim was obviously to make a straw man to burn.

What about science? The author presents absolutely no science or even links to it. He likely expects any reader to grant that the existing science is entirely on his and the climate alarmists' side. He says don't try to convince a skeptic/denier with science. That's a waste of time. Instead appeal to the interlocutor’s values and how they differ from his or another alarmist's. Does the author give his values? No, but I bet they include substantial bullying and coercion by governments aimed at achieving his and other alarmists' climate goals. I have no problem with individuals or organizations trying to reduce their carbon "footprint", but not by using or encouraging force against others.

Pathetic.

CBS News on Canada's climate change

I saw this CBS News video on Canada's warming faster than most of the Earth.

Asked what has caused Canada's climate to warm, meteorologist Jeff Berardelli replies: "For sure, it's us. Because fossil fuels that we are burning, releasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are trapping like a blanket all of that heat. So there's no doubt about why it's happening."

He sounds cocksure, doesn't he? Did he not watch 60 Minutes -- on CBS, his own network -- only two days earlier? Did he watch it and miss the part about microbes mass-producing greenhouse gases or simply ignored it? He doesn't mention sunspots or clouds either. And where are all those greenhouse gas belching power plants, cars, and trucks in the vast areas within the Arctic Circle where so few human live?

Given he is so cocksure, I'd like to know about his carbon footprint. Does he practice what he preaches? Does he travel in cars and planes rather than walk or bicycle? Does his home rely on fossil fuels for heating, air-conditioning, and electricity? Or does he only love to tell others how they should live, or wants a coercive government to do so, and he himself refuses to abide by his own sermons?

60 Minutes show on climate change

Part of Sunday's (March 31) CBS's 60 Minutes was about climate change in the Arctic Circle. The Russian geophysicist Sergey Zimov has lived there for many years. He is best known for his theory that human over-hunting of large herbivores during the Pleistocene or Ice Age, which ended about 11,700 years ago, caused Siberia's grassland-steppe ecosystem to disappear and for raising awareness as to the important roles permafrost and thermokarst lakes play in the global carbon cycle (link).

The following are excerpts from the 60 Minutes show.

"Sergey Zimov told us when man became the main predator, the woolly mammoth and other large grazers were hunted to extinction. Forest replaced grasslands and that made Siberia vulnerable to a warming climate. Because trees trap more heat than grass. And winter temperatures of 40-below can't freeze the permafrost if there are no herds of animals to trample the insulating snow."

"This is a warning to the world because organic matter in the permafrost, plants and animals, has been frozen for hundreds of thousands of years. As it thaws, microbes consume that organic matter and release carbon dioxide and methane, greenhouse gases which contribute to a warmer climate."

"Scientists estimate there is more greenhouse gas in permafrost than in all of the world's remaining oil, natural gas and coal."

I have seen graphics that allegedly show the magnitude of temperature changes in the past few decades in different regions of the globe such as this one.  The temperatures differences are for only one day, but they are quite persistent. The biggest changes are in or near the Arctic Circle. Narratives about melting polar ice caps and glaciers and shrinking polar bear habitats are numerous.  The typical alarmist narrative is that warming anywhere is caused by humans burning fossil fuels and only that. Other possible causes are flippantly dismissed.

What I found interesting about the 60 Minutes show is what it did not say or even acknowledge. The cause of the melting permafrost according to Zimov is (1) human activity long before humans began burning fossil fuels, and (2) microbes producing greenhouse gases, not humans burning fossil fuels. Intentional or not, the 60 Minutes show omitted saying anything that challenges the typical alarmist narrative.

The Dakota Free Press ("South Dakota's True Liberal Media") exemplifies the typical alarmist narrative. Referring to the 60 Minutes show, the author says, "If we don’t take our foot off the gas, we’ll melt the Siberian permafrost, and then climate change will really accelerate" (link). Huh? Did the author simply hear only what he wanted to hear? He even quotes Zimov saying that the greenhouse gases are being produced by microbes. He ignores it (an inconvenient truth?) and leaps to the conclusion that the warming is caused by humans burning fossil fuels.

Another curious thing about the graphic of regional temperature changes linked above is the United States. Most of the USA is colored blue, indicating a drop in temperature. If the USA burns more fossil fuels per capita than most other countries, it seems the temperature drop is counter to the typical alarmist narrative.

See here for more about regional differences in CO2 concentrations.