I figure the proper thing to do when discussing this with global-warming libtards is to ask them what THEY are doing about it. Have they given up their automobile? Are they vegan? Do they plant one or more trees per day? If their answer to any of these questions is "no," then their concern isn't sincere. It's that simple.
September 21, 2019
Climate Change? Eat, Drink, & Be Merry!
by L. Reichard White
LewRockwell.com
At the end of October 2018, the United Nations — and later in November, the U.S. Government — issued reports buttressing previous warnings about climate change in the next 100 years, assuming warming rather than cooling, blaming it mostly on CO² emissions, and particularly including 100-year economic forecasts of the anticipated damage.
Austrian Economists — and even honest non-Austrians — know better. As non-Austrian John Kenneth Galbraith put it — and markets and government budgets constantly reaffirm — “The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.“
Did they do any better with those 100 year climate forecasts?
If you accept the current favorite computer-model generated climate hypotheses, Al Gore set the stage for us in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech eleven years ago – –
The outer boundary of what we currently believe to be feasible is still far short of what we actually must do.“
Translation: “We don’t believe we can possibly do anywhere near what our computer simulations say we must do.”
Meanwhile, at the December climate confab in Katowice Poland we learned that, according to the current climate orthodoxy, the situation has gotten a lot worse since Mr. Gore spelled things out in his Nobel acceptance speech.
Despite eleven years of effort to radically reduce yearly carbon emissions — including all the previous Climate Accords — Kyoto, Rio, Paris – – –
…three years after Paris, countries appear no closer to curbing global emissions and halting catastrophic climate change. New studies show global carbon emissions may have risen as much [as] 3.7 percent in 2018, marking the second annual increase in a row.” –via Democracy Now
Even if CO² emissions weren’t increasing and were stable, according to current climate orthodoxy, they are still impossibly huge — and piling up year by year even though the latest (2018 ) simulations say they must be reduced to zero.
It seems Mr. Gore has been proven completely correct and, despite the best efforts of global warming aficionados — for example, UK Protesters Are Super-gluing Themselves to Buildings to Fight Climate Crisis — what we can do remains “far short of what we actually must do.” And it’s getting worse not better.
Which is understandable since, no matter the cost, as enshrined in the Green New Deal, “what we actually must do” includes but is not limited to eliminating all air travel, all fossil fueled vehicles, all fossil fuel generated electricity, and nearly all beef cattle. It’s not clear if dairy cows — and thus milk — will be spared.
Even if the less draconian changes suggested in the Paris Accords could be accomplished, they wouldn’t even begin to fix things.
So it’s clear these asserted necessary changes simply aren’t going to happen, certainly not from attempted top-down control of Earth’s approximately seven-billion people by governments and the ne’er-do-wells who are attracted to those dangerous and less than desirable organizations. Especially not in the remaining 10 years allotted.
As one teen climate activist put it, “Our Leaders Are Behaving Like Children.” So, what else is new?
Further, according to Mr. Gore in 2017, ‘Some Levels of Earth Have Crossed Point of No Return’. And that was two years ago.
Even California’s five-term U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein knows. As she told one panicked teen climate activist, March 1, 2019, “Well, it’s not going to get turned around in 10 years.”
So it’s pretty clear: If the global warming advocates’ computer forecasts are correct, things are inexorably moving in exactly the wrong direction and the increasing CO² emissions simply won’t be reversed — let alone eliminated — in time if at all.
So “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.”
On the other hand, it’s quite likely that things aren’t nearly as dire as current computer simulated climate orthodoxy suggests.
See, there’s climate science and then there’s climate speculation.
The science part is the meticulously assembled data-sets attempting to reconstruct earth’s past climate conditions as accurately as possible using tree-rings, ice-cores, fossils and the rest of the geologic record.
Although sampling intervals aren’t always consistent and often quite large in both time and distance — leaving room for all sorts of undocumented fluctuations and occurrences — that is still excellent and credible work.
On the other hand, the speculation part is the computer-model simulated projections of future climate using these data-sets but adding-in many guesses, assumptions, tweaks and kludges.
Climate simulation models are designed to be flexible because they have to be constantly changed when they’re wrong. Even in more established work, as in modeling damage to physical things like buidings, one of my compadres put it like this: “Even with ‘AutoCAD,’ ‘SOLIDWORKS,’ etc., you could model a building to blow over flat in a 30 mph wind.”
That’s why some nerds call computer simulations “technical fiction.”
It goes without saying that if you can jigger models of solid things like buildings, you could easily modify climate models to fit your biases.
So, although not as precise, climate science is like looking at the meticulously recorded past performance of stocks. Climate speculation on the other hand, is like picking one stock, a rather unlikely one, and insisting on betting the farm on it.
At least in the case of stock speculation, the hucksters are required to warn their marks that “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.” The thing is, in the case of climate speculation, there’s little “past performance” and what little there is is considerably less than awe inspiring.
A couple of examples – – –
Despite the speculation crew’s forecasts of the opposite, there was a hurricane lull between late 2005 and 2017 — about 12 years — with no major hurricane over Cat 3 hitting the continental USA.
Then there was the famous if embarrassing 1998 to 2013 ‘global-warming pause’ or ‘hiatus’ when all the warming predictions stayed wrong for 15 years. That was when the human-caused warming (AGW) folks were finally forced, kicking and screaming, to forego speculative “global warming” and adopt scientifically sound “climate change” to describe things instead.
For an example of the accuracy of the simulations, in 2013,
Compared to the actual temperature rise since 1980, the average of 32 top climate models (the so-called CMIP5) overestimates it by 71-159%. A new Nature Climate Change study shows that the prevailing climate models produced estimates that overshot the temperature rise over the last 15 years by more than 300%.” –Global Warming Without Fear by Bjørn Lomborg – Project Syndicate
Are you ready to bet the farm?
The bottom line is, as seminal economist Ludwig von Mises, seminal quantum physicist Niels Bohr, and seminal baseball catcher Yogi Berra all agree, “Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future.” Especially 100 years in the future.
One of the likely reasons the computer speculations fail is, as science guru Freeman Dyson points out, while climate models take into account many physical factors, they pay little or no attention to the biology and chemistry of sky, soil and plants. “The biologists have essentially been pushed aside.”
In large part, that’s because, like many many other factors, realistically modeling the chemistry of sky, soil and especially plants — that is the biosphere — is pretty much impossible.
OK, just add a few more guesses, assumptions, tweaks and kludges.
In fact, more CO² plus warming — whether from human-caused green house gases or not — stimulates plant growth which takes CO² out of circulation and turns it into plant stuff such as wood, which would lead to equilibrium.
However, the panic of those folks who have created these hundred-year-plus climate simulations — and particularly those who have blindly bought into them — is understandable. That’s especially true in the case of extremists such as Michael “hockey-stick” Mann etc. who posit that earth will sortta go molten.
With that image, they’ve created a modernized version of Pascal’s Wager. Either we give up modern civilization or we will certainly go straight to Hell. Almost literally.
But in this modern version of The Wager, we already know we simply aren’t going to give up modern civilization. And even if we could, it would hurt, even kill, mostly poorer folks.
Those who aren’t hooked on computer modeling see things differently. As gonzo physicist Freeman Dyson puts it,
The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models, They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models.” –www.nytimes.com
The level of certainty required to believe this modern Pascal’s Wager simply doesn’t exist in science anyway. Seminal quantum physicist Richard Feynman explains it like this: “I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.”
Here’s how that applies to global warming models – – –
“The models are getting more accurate in the sense that they simulate many processes more realistically,” explains Reto Knutti, a professor at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich who was one of the lead contributors to the Fifth Assessment Report. “But having said that, all of that has not really helped in decreasing the uncertainty in future projections.“… Why Climate Models Aren’t Better – MIT Technology Review
It also follows that so-called “settled science,” often used to describe climate speculation, is an unscientific myth. It’s especially unscientific in the case of long-term computer-modeled climate forecasts pushed by Pascal’s Wager thinking.
So folks who understand the true nature of science — and aren’t fooled by Pascal’s Wager — are seriously less spooked
OK, if you’re still with me, we need to define and/or separate a few things we’ve already touched on.
Climate Change (abbreviated CC): It’s been changing since at least the beginning of life on earth. Anyone who claims climate ISN’T changing can be safely ignored.
Global Warming (GW): One of the two possible trends in Climate Change: The other is cooling. Both happen. As a result, Earth’s climate never remains the same.
Anthropogenic (human-caused) Global Warming (AGW): An hypothesis (guess) that human activity, particularly our release of CO², is causing the current small geologically short-term warming trend. Methane is also mentioned but unlike CO², it and its effects dissipate relatively quickly.
Questioning AGW is not questioning Climate Change. It’s questioning the hypothesis that the small amount of the total CO² in the atmosphere from human activity is having a noticable effect.
Keep in mind, the only source of heat for Earth that matters is the variable Sun with at most 10% coming from Earth’s interior. There’s nothing else worth mentioning.
CO² and methane do NOT produce heat. The claim is only that they’re “green house gasses” and only trap heat from other sources.
Other than the Sun — and Earth’s precessing orbit — by far the main thing that messes with Earth’s ambient temperature is water in various forms. Water vapor — particularly clouds — is by far the most active and influential “green house gas” but, like the biosphere and many other factors, extremely hard, perhaps impossible, to realistically quantify in climate models.
Further, since it’s only an hypothesis, AGW isn’t proof, it requires proof. Even theories — defined as hypotheses supported by abundant data — are always open to question. There are several theories attempting to explain gravity, for example.
So how do you know the small temperature increase you measure is from CO² and not from another source entirely — the Variable Sun for example. Or even maybe a sampling interval or other glitch in your data? Or a geologically short-term fluctuation?
So of course there are always scientists and other credible folks who disagree with you. That’s science at work. If you commit the error of calling those folks “deniers” you are demonstrating you don’t understand how science works — and probably that your position won’t hold water and/or you’ve accepted it on faith.
And, perhaps, you’re panicked because you’ve subliminally accepted it as a Pascal’s Wager certainty?
It follows that in real science, rather than calling those who disagree with you names, maybe you should pay attention – – –
Co-founder of environmental organization Greenpeace Patrick Moore said Tuesday that the climate change crisis …”is not only fake news. It’s fake science.” Moore also wondered …why people would be worried about global warming: “A little bit of warming would not be a bad thing”… Moore, who now sits as a director on the CO2 Coalition, a group of American and Canadian scientists who refute man-made climate change, says carbon dioxide is “the main building block of all life” and that it is good for the environment. … “Of course climate change is real: it’s been happening since the beginning of time but it’s not dangerous and it’s not created by people [it’s] a completely natural phenomenon.” Moore questioned why so many scientists who promote a climate change crisis receive “perpetual government grants …” — The Daily Caller
and – – –
“The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures,” [highly respected hurricane forecaster] Dr Gray said. …”It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong,” he said. “But they also know that they’d never get any grants if they spoke out. I don’t care about grants.” –The Sydney Morning Herald
And – – –
NASA Scientists Dispute [CO²] Climate Change
As it turns out, the current super-hyped and highly ballyhooed scientific consensus that human behavior is causing — or can cause — significant global warming, when honestly traced, originates with 53 IPCC writers — not necessarily scientists BTW, with 40 of them climate speculators, ah, climate modelers — plus five reviewers.
On the other hand, there are at least 31,000 American Scientists — over 9,000 with PhDs — who have each arrived at an informed opinion and very definitely, by signing http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php">this petition, reject the hypothesis of significant human-caused global warming.
So we have 58 IPCC folks who we can be sure officially espouse AGW climate change, 31,000-plus informed American scientists who very specifically disagree, and then, especially given those seriously conflicting figures, we have the astonishing claim that 96% of scientists agree with IPCC’s AGW.
So, AGW folks, to get your 96% agreement figure — just to balance those 31,000 scientists who diss AGW — the math says you need at least 744,000 (96% / 4% x 31,000) scientists who specifically agree with your version of AGW, preferably ones that have signed an equivalent petition or other proof of agreement.
Where are they?
Or did you only ask a small group of copasetic folks to get that 96% figure? Or did you just make it up?
In any case, consensus in science — if there is one and even if it’s arrived at honestly — is the least useful level of scientific confidence. Sounds strange to the non-scientist — and probably heresy to those steeped in “the majority rules“ — but here it is in concentrated form:
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.” –Michael Crichton
If you harbor undue respect for scientific consensus, this example of how one was arrived at should help clear that up – – –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=11FN8pJSoPA
There’s another often misused idea that needs to be put in proper context: “recorded history.”
Consistent organized quantitative weather records have only been widely available since, at best, the late 1800s.
More realistically, the British Met Office says it was 1914 — when observation stations became more uniform in collection and recording methods and there were enough of them to show the Big Picture. And that was for the U.K. and mostly just temperatures and precipitation.
And then the rest of the world had to catch on and start keeping accurate records too. And the world is a very big place. So even during a large part of recorded history sampling intervals were quite large in both time and distance, leaving room for all sorts of undocumented fluctuations and occurrences.
The accuracy of older methods and instruments is understandably iffy, and when we’re in a panic over a three-degree temperature rise, even one degree off is a 33% error.
And of course, “recorded history” is less than the blink of an eye in Earth’s geologic history.
So while “recorded history” sounds impressive, statistically and in the context of geologic time, it’s much ado about very little. None-the-less, as you’ll likely notice, “recorded history” is mercilessly flogged and abused by the Pascal’s Wager folks.
Getting back to more dependable science, what Dr. Crichton was referring to by “reproducible results” is replication. In a nut-shell, The Scientific Method is just an organized way of asking questions and checking and re-checking answers.
Replication is the process of checking and re-checking answers by others repeating the experiment and it’s the absolutely essential foundation of science.
We might call the process of checking and re-checking — and allowing enough time to uncover mistakes, misprints, unintended bias, fudges, fibs, misrepresentations, fraud, etc. — “Due Process of Science.” Without Due Process, you can’t claim it’s science.
And you DO have to look out for bias, fudges, fibs, misrepresentations and unfortunately fraud as well.
The big bias emerged from the grand-daddy of AGW bastions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — supposed to be scientifically neutral. It emerged from the scandal that became known as “Climategate.” In essence, a key division of IPCC admitted that it’s goal wasn’t to find out if AGW was real but to convince everyone that it was.
With that in mind, many of the fudges, fibs, misrepresentations — and even mistakes and misprints — that come from the AGW camp take on a little different tint. These for example – – –
Researchers discovered that in global surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, early Australian data points starting in the 1940s were being adjusted cooler and more recent cold data points were being adjusted warmer. Adjustments are normal but not when most of them enhance the appearance of warming. You’d expect about 50/50. “Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” meteorologist Joe D’Aleo told The Daily Caller.
And then there are the much touted sea level increases claimed to be the result of warming. Because tectonic changes — changes caused by earth quakes and continental subsidence etc. — masquarade as sea level increases, measuring GW effects, whether or not caused by us humans, is not a slam-dunk.
Which opens the door to disingenuous interpretations of data and more Pascal’s Wager scare-stories. The shakey claim that the sea level is rising faster than anytime in the last 2,700 years for example.
Luckily we have folks like Swedish paleo-geophysicist Dr. Nils-Axel Morner to help keep things on the up-and-up. Like this – – – U.N. IPCC Swedish Scientist debunks rapidly rising sea levels and a lot of other AGW fibs, misrepresentations, and out-and-out lies.
Even more disturbing is that the AGW folks attack and try to drive out scientists who point out their mistakes, fibs and/or fraud rather than determining which interpretation fits the data — or bully or worse those who change their minds and disagree with them.
And now, with Climategate and Due Process of Science in mind, we’ll head into even deeper and more troubling waters.
There are two clues above — one from Dr. Gray, one from Greenpeace’s Moore — that reveal the tip of an unexpected iceberg that threatens to sink modern science-in-general or at least fill a few of its water-tight compartments with sea water. Here are the clues:
Moore questioned why so many scientists who promote a climate change crisis receive “perpetual government grants”
“But they [my fellow scientists] also know that they’d never get any grants if they spoke out. I don’t care about grants” –Dr. Gray
The iceberg is that as a result of salary and funding dependence in tandem with perpetual funding by government — and other special interests — modern science in general has fallen victim to chronic, humongous, money-driven confirmation bias and misdirection.
There are other money-enhanced problems as well but government-funded confirmation bias and misdirection is the elephant in the closet.
Confirmation bias? It’s the entirely human tendency to look for and notice things that confirm what you believe and ignore things which contradict that.
Funding bias is even more insidious. As Sir Karl Popper was fond of pointing out to his students, the first decision in science is what to observe. Funding decides that for you, usually outside of science, and thus science itself is often misdirected.
I can’t do that topic full justice here, but I’ll give it a try in another article, specifically, “Et Tu Mr. Science?” and if you’re reading this after 2019, you can probably find it linked here.
But here’s the down-and-dirty version – – –
… there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true…. “We should accept that most research findings will be refuted. Some will be replicated and validated. The replication process is more important than the first discovery,” [John] Ioannidis says. –Most scientific papers are probably wrong, New Scientist, Kurt Kleiner
Notice Mr. Ioannidis’ reference to the importance of replication. You can find his paper here.
But then again, maybe a greater than 50% failure rate isn’t so surprising given this startling observation from veteran science journal editor J. Scott Armstrong – – –
Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method
In that particular piece, Mr. Armstrong is focusing on climate science.
With this failure to follow Scientific Method in mind — and less than a 50% accuracy rate as Mr. Ioannidis hi-lited — it’s clear why “the replication process is more important than the first discovery.”
But unfortunately and hard as it is to believe, there’s a replication crisis in science, that is, despite the fact that replication is the absolutely essential foundation of science, replication is regularly M.I.A. — Missing In Action.
So the establishment has been trying to replace it with what is basically a consensus process called “peer review.” Recall Dr. Crichton’s take on consensus in science.
Even more disheartening, while you’d at least expect there to be several peers involved in a peer review, usually it’s just one and often not a peer or even a scientist. Which generates this evaluation from another veteran science editor – – –
Peer review switches from merely useless to actively harmful. It may be ineffective at keeping papers with analytic or methodological flaws from being published, but it can be deadly effective at suppressing criticism of a dominant research paradigm. –William A. Wilson
And if that’s not bad enough, there are things like this – – –
Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal –The Washington Post
From his personal experience, one veteran science writer describes the over-all results this way – – –
Well, there’s what I call a process of knowledge filtration that operates in the world of science. …I think it’s because of this process of knowledge filtration that we don’t have a complete set of facts upon which to base our decisions and judgments about important questions … Evidence that goes along with the current theories is treated according to one set of rules whereas evidence that radically contradicts the current theories is judged by a much stricter standard. … “I mean it is really amazing because normally we’re told that’s not how the world of science operates. …” –Michael A. Cremo
Mr. Cremo’s observation clearly drags the money-driven confirmation-bias and misdirection elephant out of the closet.
And, as it applies to IPCC’s AGW global warming hypothesis, thoroughly credentialled 57-year member of the American Physical Society and former APS official Prof. Hal Lewis lights it up like this – – –
I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the [American Physical] Society. It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. … I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about [ the militaryIndustrial complex] a half-century ago.” –Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society
So before “scientist” became a defined profession with salaried positions and government funding, science worked differently. And in many ways better.
Normally folks ass-u-me the global warming funding bias comes from Big Oil, and some does. But Greenpeace’s Patrick Moore, Hurricane forecaster Dr. Gray, Physicist Hal Lewis, etc. straighten things out: industry funding pales, almost to insignificance, in comparison to “perpetual government grants,” which, in the case of climate, nearly always supports pro-AGW research.
Clearly the Pascal’s Wager folks have jumped on the AGW confirmation bias gravy train and since their funding and salary depend on it, they’re peddling as fast as they can.
But why would governments support AGW?
The Green New Deal has already admitted it wants to eliminate air travel. The facility to turn off your car from satellite if you miss a payment etc, could easily be adapted to ration or prevent auto travel. And those new utility meters could easily be adapted to ration your use of electricity etc.
Can you imagine a more effective way for government and the hierarchical wiindigos and control addicts who are attracted to it to get in your face and control nearly every aspect of your life than to control your energy use? Let your imagination run wild.
As I mentioned earlier, CO² is an unlikely villain. Currently it amounts to only about 400 parts per million or .04% of our atmosphere. That’s low by historical standards, and only the smaller part is claimed to be from us humans. There’s more argon in the atmosphere than CO².
And it’s not even necessary to invoke the statistical truism that “correlation does not imply causation” because, as you can see in the graph below, there’s no dependable correlation between CO² concentration and Earth’s temperature anyway. Unless you shamelessly cherry-pick a few rare, short, time periods.
Notice that sometimes CO² increases and there’s no warming or there’s even cooling instead. Further, warming sometimes happens first and CO² increases come later. It’s not often that causes come after effects. Etc.
And then there’s the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) — the highest temperature in the graph above — which is cited as the quintessential AGW modeler’s holy grail. But as a Rice University investigation discovered as a result of close examination of the PETM, “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”
And even the AGW-friendly summation in the Wikipedia article has to admit, “Although it is now widely accepted that the PETM represents a ‘case study’ for global warming and massive carbon input to Earth’s surface,[1][10] the cause, details and overall significance of the event remain perplexing.” … –Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum – Wikipedia
But they’re only perplexing if you insist that CO² from any source predictably causes significant global warming.
There are all sorts of other failures and glitches from the models, but to shorten things up, you can find 25 simple bullet points from a geologist — who takes the long-view of things, keeps recorded history in perspective, and pretty much absolves CO² of being the cause of significant global warming here.
So, in addition to the 12-year hurricane lull, and the 15-year warming hiatus when all the forecasts were wrong we can add no long-term correlation between CO² and Earth’s temperature, CO² increases that lag warming, the perplexing PETM,and the 25 points above.
And don’t forget those scientists like Freeman Dyson, Hal Lewis, Patrick Moore, Dr Gray, who all disagree with AGW, including those 31,000-plus scientists — more than 9,000 with PhDs — who signed http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php">this petition. Etc.
Are you ready to bet the farm yet?
There is, of course, a chance the IPCC endorsed simulations — especially minus the Pascal’s Wager folks — are at least partly right. So, maybe you’re not ready to bet the farm but maybe you might risk the south forty.
The question you might want to ask the IPCC climate modelers before you even do that is, “How accurate have your specific previous predictions been? All of them, not just a cherry-picked handful.”
If you still believe CO² etc. emissions should be reduced, there are a few things “we” can do, maybe just to hedge our bets.
First, keep governments out of it. They will mislead you and waste your time. “Democracies” invariably evolve to serve well-connected folks who can afford to buy them with campaign bribes and control them with lobbyists. Generally those folks aren’t eco-friendly. I call the result bogus democracy.
And under the best of conditions, as California “Governator” Arnold Schwarzenegger discovered, “Things don’t go as fast in government as they do in the private sector.”
If there really is a “climate crisis,” we simply can’t wait around for bogus democracy.
If you feel you just must mess with government, the thing to focus on is preventing them from continuing to subsidize fossil fuels and from tinkering with the markets in solar and other renewables. Forcing the use of ethanol in gasoline was a minor ecological disaster for example.
This is where protests and demonstrations might be somewhat useful, but boycotts are by far the most effective tools. Learn about them. Use them!
And, despite the hype and propaganda, “we the people” aren’t all on board anyway – – –
Australian Voters Choose Conservative PM Morrison Over Opponent Who Vowed to Tackle Climate Change
Luckily, once you free yourself from winner-takes-all bogus democracy, you don’t need a majority, you just need to find those who agree with you. Instead of wasting time attempting to coerce folks who don’t agree, spend the same time, energy, and money pursuing your green goal.
Plant things for example. Plants convert atmospheric CO² to things like wood so trees are a very good choice. Ethopians are planting literally millions of them.
If they can we can. Remember Johnny Appleseed. Emulate the Ethiopians and start a club.
Change your own behavior to green. If even a third of the folks on Earth agree with AGW and act accordingly, that would cut emissions by a bunch.
And without the Pascal’s Wager extremists, the simulations are predicting a warming of at most 3.7°C (1.0° to 3.7°) and a maximum sea-level rise of about two feet (40cm to 62cm). Over the next 100 years. Even snails have plenty of time to move to higher ground. And maybe some displaced folks could farm etc. in Greenland, appropriately named during the Medieval Warm Period about 1200 years ago.
Further, the birth rate is falling below the 2.1 “stable” rate in most “developed” countries and decreasing in most others. In other words, with all its ramifications, the zero-growth movement has already won where it counts. The baby-boom is over. In Japan, Russia, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Italy, and minus those “illegal” immigrants, even in the U.S.A. Etc.
Further yet, barring bogus-democracy interference, free-market forces are moving us quickly to solar and other renewables because they’re more cost-effective and efficient. (No they aren't. Once they're more cost-effective and efficient, they'll quickly dominate. We aren't there yet. Not even close. - De)
So, as far as CO²-caused global warming goes, either you don’t have anything serious to worry about or, if the alarmists are right, there’s nothing you can do about it.
So, Climate Change? Eat, drink and be merry!
However, there are two other really scary human-caused global climate threats we should try to do something about:
1. So-called geoengineering where our “experts” tinker with Mother Earth’s complex and poorly understood systems — originally proposed during Obama. And of course, there couldn’t possibly be unintended consequences. Could there?
2. With The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist doomsday clock about half-a-minute from midnight, the other climate threat is the completely “anthropogenic” climate change called “nuclear winter.”
If we don’t do something about it, a Princeton U. study shows how that might happen.
Here for updates, additions, comments, and corrections.
AND, “Like,” “Tweet,” and otherwise, pass this along!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/09/l-reichard-white/climate-change-eat-drink-be-merry/
| 
