Climate science has died. The effects will be big.

Summary:  Let’s hit “pause” in the climate wars and see how we got here, where we are going, and what we can learn from this mess.

I can’t use this result. It doesn’t support the narrative.

Climate scientist at work - Dreamstime-99364552
Photo 99364552 © Standret – Dreamstime.

At the time I thought this statement was daft. Now I see that she was spot on, but not in the way she meant it. And with results that she did not intend.

“The time for debate has ended.”
— Marcia McNutt (former director of the US Geological Survey, then editor-in-Chief of Science magazine, now President of the NAS) in “The beyond-two-degree inferno“, an editorial in Science, 3 July 2015.

Science is a structured process of debate. No debate means no science, as we use the term. Since 2015, the debate about a public policy response to climate change has stopped in any meaningful form, because the activists who control it have abandoned science. Now the headlines describe reports by activists describing every form of extreme weather as resulting from rising CO2 (e.g., recent flooding in Venice) – and making increasingly dire predictions of future weather. The former are largely bogus, for reasons described below. The latter are either based on the unlikely-or-impossible RCP8.5 scenario (see here and here) – or fantasies of ever more extreme scenarios. There is little or no effort to base these in hard science. They are presented to the public as certainties. The models making these predictions are presented as a modern form of haruspicy (oracles from the gods elicited by animal sacrifice). Contrary opinions are seldom given, except in a pre-debunked form.

The goal is to arouse fear, even panic – not to inform.

“Do remember you are there to fuddle him.  From the way some of you young fiends talk, anyone would suppose it was our job to teach!”
— Editor’s advice to a junior reporter in Hell. From The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis (1942).

The effect of this on climate science

Almost everybody works for a living. We have aspirations for a good life. Most of us have families to provide for. Almost none of us have any substantial way to influence the conduct of the institutions in which we serve as cogs. We are vulnerable to formal and (more important) informal feedback mechanisms of our rulers.

In climate science, the elites running its institutions – such as Marcia McNutt – want research that supports the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative. After saying “the debate is ended,” she is not likely to support papers that call it into question. As Editor of the Science family of journals, that means they will not get published (damaging careers of junior scientists who did not get the memo). As president of the National Academies, that means no funding (wrecking the careers of upstart junior scientists). Even eminent and senior scientists are discarded if they challenge the narrative (e.g., Roger Pielke Sr., Judith Curry, Peter Ridd).

That is just good sense for McNutt and her peers. Journalists want doomster stories. Activists controlling the flocks of non-governmental agencies demand doomster research. Powerful political interests want doomster research (“conservative” politicians, organizations, and corporations do not care – knowing that they will have their share of gain from the expansion of government power). The incentives are tilted to one side.

So we get a flood every month of increasingly dubious research about the effects of global warming. Weak statistical methods, exaggerated claims, endless predictions doom based on bogus claims that RCP8.5 is “business as usual” scenario. Models are used to make increasingly detailed predictions about regional effects and far future events – with little effort to validate them (there is a large body of knowledge of model validation, largely ignored by climate science). But climate science has a deeper and more severe problem.

“Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory – an event which would have refuted the theory.”
— Karl Popper in Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1963).

“Viewed as a body of substantive hypotheses, theory is to be judged by its predictive power for the class of phenomena which it is intended to ‘explain.’ Only factual evidence can show whether it is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or, better, tentatively ‘accepted’ as valid or ‘rejected.’ As I shall argue at greater length below, the only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of its predictions with experience.”
— Milton Friedman in “The Methodology of Positive Economics“, from Essays in Positive Economics (1966).

Instead of making specific predictions about near-term (testable) weather, climate scientists now explain how current weather results from increased greenhouse gases. A big hurricane (e.g., Katrina in 2005, Irma in 2017) produces papers showing that more and bigger hurricanes are our future (here, here, and here). Large regional droughts are proclaimed the “new normal” (e.g., Texas, California) – until they end. The end of snow, more & bigger tornadoes, more & bigger wildfires (see them all here) – climate scientists seldom accurately predict them, but afterwards confidently forecast more of the same. Even outright falsification of predictions are evidence of global warming, such as the rising and falling of the Great Lakes. False predictions are ignored, preventing progress. My favorite: Terrifying predictions about the melting North Pole!

Climate scientist Richard Betts warned his fellows in a BBC op-ed (which they would not publish today): “Science must end climate confusion” (11 January 2010).

“Of course, we know that these things {extreme weather} happen anyway, even without climate change – they may happen more often under a warmer climate, but it is wrong to blame climate change for every single event. Climate scientists know this, but still there are people outside of climate science who will claim or imply such things if it helps make the news or generate support for their political or business agenda. …

“{D}o climate scientists do enough to counter this? Or are we guilty of turning a blind eye to these things because we think they are on ‘our side’ against the climate sceptics? …Climate scientists need to take more responsibility for the communication of their work to avoid this kind of thing. Even if scientists themselves are not blaming everything on climate change, it still reflects badly on us if others do this.”

But what about the ethics of science? Scientists’ sacred obligation to pursue truth. It is a chimera – a thing that is desired but in fact is imaginary. Biomedical research – with its massive direct effect on people – is severely corrupted. There is no Hippocratic Oath for scientists (and increasingly, nothing like it that is meaningful for doctors). We should expect any field of science whose fruits are valuable to the powerful to be corrupted.

  1. About the corruption of climate science.
  2. The noble corruption of climate science.
  3. A crisis of overconfidence in climate science.

Danger, journalists at work

Fame is money in our society. Journalists boost the careers of scientists whose work supports the narrative. Climate scientists would have to be saints to ignore this. Few are, and the rest cheer journalists who misrepresent or exaggerate their findings.

  1. A real-time example of the birth and spread of climate propaganda.
  2. Daily stories of climate death build a Green New Deal!
  3. A look at the workings of climate propaganda.
  4. Wildfires and climate change: fake news in action.
  5. See how climate science becomes alarmist propaganda.
  6. How journalists helped wreck the climate debate – by climate scientist Roy Spencer.
  7. A look at the workings of climate propaganda.
  8. Enlisting peer-reviewed science in the climate crusade.

The policy debate decouples from science

After the IPCC published its Fifth Assessment Report in 2014, activists took a fateful but brilliant step. AR5 did not support the doomster narrative, so they condemned the IPCC as “too conservative” (examples here and here). With the support of journalists and NGOs, they broke free from the tethers of science, birthing the Climate Emergency and Extinction Rebellion – based on false claims of mass extinctions occurring now (here, here, and here). Scientists have joined the parade with increasing bogus claims of dooms present and future. Those that are insufficiently enthusiastic are attacked (e.g., here).

Naked Capitalism, whose daily links are imo the premier source of news from a left perspective, gives a dozen such stories every week. Most are to some extent fake news. But their volume makes refutation, even verification of their claims, impossible for any individual or small group. And there is no money for skepticism (easily seen by comparing the amateurish skeptics’ websites with the lavishly funded, professionally run activists’ websites). A very few climate scientists have spoken out against the growing hysteria (e.g., here, here, and here), but one might as well have tried to save the Titanic with a bucket.

I and others have proposed rational responses to climate change that can get broad support (e.g., here and here). It is hopeless. The tide of alarmism continues to rise, often becoming self-parody. There are rumors that AR6 will go full doomster. The Bandwagon Effect generates positive feedbacks that in America today often converts concerns about real problems into moral panics (e.g., white slavery, satanic ritual abuse). There is nothing visible that can stop this escalation.


The response of our science and political institutions to climate change have been self-defeating – the opposite of what people expect from scientists warning about a severe threat (see here and here). So far they have little to show in America for their vast expenditure of time and money. And China has ignored them. But they have laid the foundation for victory. They need only some help from Nature. With their control of so many key institutions, a big bout of severe weather (e.g., a hurricane hitting downtown Miami or Washington) – blamed on Climate Change – might panic Americans into supporting the Green New Deal.

Mother Nature has been their foe so far. But she is fickle. Like any insurrection, climate alarmists need win only once.

But the damage to climate science is effectively forever. Generations of scientists have learned that success is political, and I believe the resulting long slide of research quality has just begun. Only great effort over long periods of time will reverse that. I doubt we will start in the foreseeable future. We might pay much for our folly when past extreme weather comes again.

“We don’t even plan for the past.”
— Steven Mosher (member of Berkeley Earthbio here), a comment posted at Climate Etc.

For More Information

Ideas! See my recommended books and films at Amazon. Also, see Chapter One of a story about our future: “Ultra Violence: Tales from Venus.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For more information about this vital issue see the keys to understanding climate change, and especially these …

  1. Let’s prepare for past climate instead of bickering about predictions of climate change – Doing something is better than nothing.
  2. Scientists show us why the climate change campaign failed – so far.
  3. Experts now run the world using their theories. What if they fail, and we lose confidence in them?
  4. Paul Krugman shows why the climate campaign failed.
  5. A demo of why we do nothing about climate change.
  6. Why climate skeptics will lose. How they can win.

Activists don’t want you to read these books

Some unexpected good news about polar bears: The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened by Susan Crockford (2019).

To learn more about the state of climate change see The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change by Roger Pielke Jr., professor for the Center for Science and Policy Research at U of CO – Boulder (2018).

The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change
Available at Amazon.


49 thoughts on “Climate science has died. The effects will be big.”

    1. Don,

      Thank you for catching that!

      It is somber. The distinguishing characteristic of my work has long been its optimism. I was an active public speaker in the 1990s. Various subjects, all with the theme The Good News is that the Bad New Is wrong (per the title of Ben Wattenberg’s 1984 book). Ditto for my posts from 2003 to circa 2017. But these days the portents are growing darker.

      I call it, for good or ill, as I see it.

      1. this is the sort of rant that makes one fear Larry is morphing into Naomi Oreskes opposite number.

        Their mutual problem is the elision of science and its nattaiver use in politics. In the former, narratives begin with discovery, in the latter, with the selective construction of rarratives as tools for political empowerment and social change.

        The somber fact is that his refusal to climb out of his echo chamber cockpit and take a sober look at climate science is one of the many small things that that contributre to impoverishing the life of the conservative mind.

        If he worked harder at understanding what he attempts to criticize, he might at least achieve narrative coherence .

      2. Russell,

        This post gives a large number of facts connected by logic.

        Do you have specific objections in terms of its facts or logic? Otherwise, you have just expressed your feelings – aka, it’s a rant. Since this isn’t grade school show and tell, that’s not helpful.

      3. The catalog of factoids on which your piece relies begins with themistaken elision of the science of climate forcing and the art of predicting the weather.

        You have reached back to the 1990’s for some once universaltropes of climate denial, e.g. Great Lakes level variability, that were fisked into oblivion before the turn of the century, and seem oblivious to how a measurable shift in radiative forcing skews the statistical disribution of extreme events than the village marxists at Naked Capitalism.

        Your credulity in accepting op-ed science rivals that of village marxists at Naked Capitalism.Please stop pounding the drums and pleading Ignoramus and read a textbook of God’s sake !

      4. Russell,

        “You have reached back to the 1990’s for some once universaltropes of climate denial, e.g. Great Lakes level variability,”

        It’s called comparing forecasts with observations. AKA science. If you clink on the links provided to works by Popper and Friedman, you will learn how it works.

        “seem oblivious to how a measurable shift in radiative forcing skews the statistical disribution of extreme events”

        That’s an assertion until statistical analysis shows it. This is also science. If you read the IPCC’s reports, you will see how this is done. Then you can make factual statements rather than rants.

        “Your credulity in accepting op-ed science rivals”

        Your inability to provide specifics is pretty funny, but sad.

        “and pleading Ignoramus and read a textbook of God’s sake !”

        If you click thru to the supporting links, you will find ample citations of the IPCC, NOAA, and the peer-reviewed literature. Your claim is called “lying.”

  1. Given current levels of atmospheric CO2, and projected continued increase, do you see any alternative to massive melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, resulting in catastrophic rise of ocean levels by the end of the century?

    1. David,

      Who is predicting “catastrophic rise of ocean levels by the end of the century”?

      From the IPCC’s AR5 Summary for Policymakers.

      “For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations.”

      “There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of natural internal variability in that region.”

      “Due to a low level of scientific understanding there is low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet over the past two decades.” – That is a small loss of mass.

      “In the Antarctic, a decrease in sea ice extent and volume is projected with low confidence for the end of the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises.”

      “The increase in surface melting of the Greenland ice sheet will exceed the increase in snowfall, leading to a positive contribution from changes in surface mass balance to future sea level (high confidence). While surface melting will remain small, an increase in snowfall on the Antarctic ice sheet is expected (medium confidence), resulting in a negative contribution to future sea level from changes in surface mass balance. Changes in outflow from both ice sheets combined will likely make a contribution in the range of 0.03 to 0.20 m by 2081−2100 (medium confidence). {13.3−13.5}”

      More recent research

      See this November 2018 summary of research about sea levels. Other than in the almost impossible RCP8.5 scenario, ice cap melting is predicted to be a minor factor in the 21st century. However, I doubt that predictions 70+ years out are worth attention (see predictions about our world from 1950).

      Research published in the past year has cast doubt on the high end forecasts for polar melting. Consensus estimates remain quite low thru 2100.

      Science is your friend. Doomsters want to manipulate you. You choose a side.

      1. And yet we keep hitting the high end of melt scenarios – scientists report shock pretty regularly at how fast Greenland glaciers are melting. We may see no more than 8-12 inches in the next 80 years, and I certainly won’t be around to record the results. Some high end estimates still portend 6 ft by century’s end. That’s pretty catastrophic.

      2. David,

        “And yet we keep hitting the high end of melt scenarios”

        Since I just posted links reviewing the current research that show the exact opposite, that seems a strange thing to say. Also, there is little or no evidence of an acceleration in the two-century-long rate of sea level rise – the closest thing to a definitive answer about current melt rates. It is a more accurate metric than estimates of melt rates in the Greenland and Antarctica ice caps (those have large error bars).

        “Some high end estimates still portend 6 ft by century’s end.”

        Yes, it is possible to construct very low probability doomster scenarios for almost every aspect of the world. Hundreds or thousands of them. But we can’t begin to cope with them all. Just managing the likely scenarios will be difficult. People clamoring for attention their favorite doomster scenarios is fun – but makes attempts to set rational public-policy into a cacophony.

      3. I love commenters that accuse Larry of ignoring the “facts,” then cite zero sources to support “the facts.”

        It hs hard for true believers to think of any skeptics of doomsterism as having opinions actually based in data. Given the poor logic shown by right-wing skeptics on the whole, it’s easy to see why.

      4. Christopher,

        “then cite zero sources to support “the facts.””

        I find that esp annoying since my posts are so heavily documented, to a degree very rare on the internet. This is a summary post, whose specific points are supported by links to a wide range of authoritative sources.

        We see your observation at work in these comments. Activists make big claims about climate change – with no supporting information. I reply with citations of the IPCC and other such sources. They ghost.

        In the old days, before the Climate Emergency as a Green religion, they would come back again and again. Empty claims, rebuttal, ghost – repeat.

      5. David,

        Got to love how almarist propaganda shops like Scientific America use fake headlines to scare people who don’t read the articles. Fortunately, a few words of actual science can calm you down.

        (1) It is one paper about a new method. As glaciologist Eric Rignot (UC Irvine and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory) says in the article:

        “{He} is not entirely convinced about the high rates of melting it found. Previous work he did to model ocean conditions in front of a glacier face at a high resolution returned much lower rates. He says he would like to see more detail in comparing these most recent data to those of previous models to sort out the differences.”

        (2) This is a model built using some data from one glacier. It tells us little about glacier melt rates vs. theory. Perhaps the standard deviation of melt rates is larger than assumed, so that they are melting faster and slower than assumed (ie, that the shape of distribution curve is different than assumed). Lots of possibilities. Progress is incremental. As Rignot says:

        “’This is the kind of data set that we need to make progress’ in understanding interactions between ocean and ice along the face of a calving glacier.”

        (3) It says that the melt rate for this glacier using their new model is higher than estimated by other models estimating melt rates. It does not say that the melt rates using in the current global sea ice models are too low. It does not even mention them.

        (4) What we do know is that there little or no evidence that the rate of sea level rise has accelerated from its long-term rate (ie, since the end of the Little Ice Age). If the cryosphere was melting “10 to 100 times quicker than previously thought”, we’d know it pretty quickly.

        Now, was this worth the effort? Have you learned anything from this exercise?

      6. (3) It says that the melt rate for this glacier using their new model is higher than estimated by other models estimating melt rates. It does not say that the melt rates using in the current global sea ice models are too low. It does not even mention them.

        Serious question: Can you explain why you’re comparing global sea ice models to the melt rate for this glacial melting studied?

    1. Nick,

      That shows the collision between our old and new cultures. The “he should have helped her” are the old culture.

      Now men are raised watching films and TV showing women hitting men. When men offer help, women brutally spurn them with “I can take care of myself” – implying that he is a sexist pig. All the accompanying behaviors – opening doors, letting her go first – are oppression.

      But men were not expected to be saints, or selflessly provide a free defense force for women. The flip side of the coin were the traditions called patriarchy. Watch old films and TV shows and see the subtle interactions between men and women.

      Now all that is gone. Except that women still assume that men provide free defense services – but only when women want it. Good luck with that.

      An Elk is a large animal, and easily capable of inflicting serious or fatal injury. It’s not something to be challenged lightly.

      Do you think this is worth writing about?

      1. “An Elk is a large animal, and easily capable of inflicting serious or fatal injury. It’s not something to be challenged lightly.”

        Indeed. I live about 30 miles from where this incident took place, and I have seen elk wander through my neighborhood. Bulls are massive creatures and an unarmed man won’t be able to shoo an angry one away, and as you correctly pointed out he could be fatally injured should he try. In the video it took a pickup truck to drive the beast away.

    1. Song Hees,

      Yes, there are dissidents. But they are dots, little known outside right-wing “skeptic” circles. The big names among climate scientists are widely known, their work broadcast each day to hundreds of millions. There is no comparison.

      1. Even nasty, finger pointing Greta is far better known. The propaganda machine is running at full speed, using children and teens like Greta as puppets. And it appears to be working. Once we see mass power plant closures (with rolling blackouts) we will know that they will have won.

      2. And yet, scientific research goes on where a core assumption behind the principle being developed directly contradicts the AGC communities’ basic premise. The article at describes the development of a generator using radiative cooling to produce energy at night, and includes the following statement: “This process is often seen in surfaces that face the sky – at night, they can become colder than the surrounding air because they radiate heat straight into space, since the atmosphere doesn’t block infrared energy.”

      3. Sean,

        That is an interesting tech. Thanks for flagging it.

        As the new industrial revolution begins, I’ll bet we see many new forms of energy gen. The Climate Emergency people believe the late 21st C will be run on coal, as was the late 19thC. I’m pretty sure that the people of that time will look back and laugh.

  2. From events over the last 10 years, it’s clear that the hijacking of science by special interests began some time ago. See for example at (50:30) and (1:22:00)

    McNutt’s ascent to a position of authority just legitimizes the intellectual slide that’s been operating for some time. It will be reversed only when those holding the purse strings force an open confrontation with real science.

    That would bring this charade to an end and enable the EPA’s Endangerment Finding to be removed.

    1. Alex,

      “It will be reversed only when those holding the purse strings force an open confrontation with real science.”

      True. The government funds most of climate science – and could force tighter standards. As the FDA did for biomedical research and testing. But, as you say, this has been going on for a long time – and the GOP has shown zero interest in reform.

      My guess is that the GOP and its corporate backers are comfortable with the massive expansion of government power that the climate activists seek. They cannot openly say so, but (as the ancient adage says) silence means assent.

      1. Ron,

        The Paris Accords were a publicity stunt. Without legal effect in the US (neither an Executive Order nor a Treaty). And, as many climate activists said (eg, Michael Mann), it was pointless in its effect on climate change.

        Your applause for Trump’s clownish behavior is sad to see.

      2. Larry,

        Mann doesn’t count anymore. What was sad was this, Obama Full Speech on Paris Climate Agreement;

  3. Pingback: Traditionalists In Shameful Silence As The Pope’s New Amazonian Rite Marches Into Interculturation Phase | Traditional Catholics Emerge

  4. Larry, you say:

    But they have laid the foundation for victory. They need only some help from Nature. With their control of so many key institutions, a big bout of severe weather (e.g., a hurricane hitting downtown Miami or Washington) – blamed on Climate Change – might panic Americans into supporting the Green New Deal.

    Conceivable short term perhaps, given a big enough weather disaster. It would have to be huge. It could happen and the initial reaction to it could be as you suggest.

    But look a bit further, what then? Surely it likely is that the GND is implemented fairly slowly, and the case for the effectiveness of what is proposed gets more and more scrutiny. At the moment its all justified on feel-goodery. When it gets to be a large scale national project, the hard questions will start to be asked, and at that point it will become clear that a wholesale substitution of renewables for fossil while continuing to live in the same way is not technically possible. And that to go to zero emissions by reducing usage is not politically possible.

    As this goes on, something fundamental is recognized: that CO2 emissions globally are rising regardless and that the GND has no chance of having any material effect on them. They are driven mainly by Far Eastern countries who are raising their emissions as fast as they can grow their economies.

    This is starting to be noticed now in stories in the mainstream media, and its going to get more and more coverage if and when the industrialized West stablizes or reduces its emissions slightly.

    At some point people will start to see this is just not working. It may paradoxically be that the way the GND and the climate hysteria end is by being thoroughly adopted and their proposals attempted to be implemented, and then obviously failing in plain view.

    You may be right that a weather disaster will give initial panicked impetus to the GND or something similar. But surely it will not end there?

    1. Henrik,

      “But look a bit further, what then? Surely it likely is that the GND is implemented fairly slowly, and the case for the effectiveness of what is proposed gets more and more scrutiny.”

      Look at the New Deal and the Great Society, parts of which were quickly shown to be dysfuncational. See he massive deficits from the Reagan and Bush Jr and Trump tax cuts. Once policies are made, the beneficiaries tend to be much more vocal and organized than the larger population that benefits less (or not at all). This is the simple math explaining why government policies tend to be difficult to reverse.

      1. Agreed. Once the activists shut down the power plants it will be next to impossible to reopen them, even if we are shivering in the dark. The climate activists will parade, the media and its pundits will fawn over them and our “betters” will constantly remind us that there is no going back.

      2. I agree it’s an extreme case, and would only happen if the Green New Deal crowd gets their way, which they probably won’t. On the other hand, things are happening right now which I would have thought to be unthinkable 10-20 years ago.

        My public utility periodically asks if they can replace my thermostat with one they can control. I always politely say “No”. I don’t think it’s going to be a far jump to get to the point where it’s no longer a friendly request, but becomes a mandate.

        As for the power plants, the scale back can be done gradually. They can throw roadblocks against new fossil power generation to meet new demand. That’s where the mandatory thermostats come in, as a form of power rationing. Then when an old plant needs a refit they roll more logs in the way and the plant ends up being closed. I don’t think it will be President AOC issuing an executive order to close all fossil fuel power plants, but it will be, as the left usually does its work, done slowly and steadily: thermostat rationing (hey, we’re helping you save money), then a very occasional blackout (hey, it’s not so bad, it just shows you’re willing to do your part to save the Earth) which over time becomes longer and more frequent (which they hope you don’t notice). Those who can afford it will install solar panels with battery back up in their homes and it will eventually be accepted as the new normal. And that is my point, once it’s the new normal, there’s no going back, the left simply won’t allow it.

        Yes, I’m speculating and I could be wrong, but I’ve been watching how the left works and they are hell bent on reducing fossil fuel power consumption.

  5. Pingback: Climate Extremism In The Age Of Disinformation – Menopausal Mother Nature

  6. Larry,

    I enjoy reading your blog and I think you make some good points, i mostly read up on the climate -related articles here. I think the climate debate needs some balance and for that I think your writings are great. However when it comes to the extinctions – i’m sure there are leftist/environmental claims to be debunked here as well – I think the historical evidence is a lot more compelling plus you can find contemporary issues as well. I think you’re doing yourself a disservice by associating yourself with a too big political umbrella – the exact reason why I find the climate movement ridiculous.

    1. RW,

      “However when it comes to the extinctions – i’m sure there are leftist/environmental claims to be debunked here as well – I think the historical evidence is a lot more compelling”

      I don’t know what you are attempting to say. What is the compelling evidence for climate-caused extinctions?

      That we are altering the biosphere, pushing large numbers of animals to extinction, is beyond doubt (although, as you note, the Left’s claims about the rate is delusional). For example, see my posts about the destruction of the oceans.

      “I think you’re doing yourself a disservice by associating yourself with a too big political umbrella”

      Again, I have no idea to what you are referring.

      “the exact reason why I find the climate movement ridiculous.”

      What does that mean?

      1. Larry,

        I don’t really refer to anything climate-related with regards to the extinctions but rather more the “paleoclimatology” equivalent of species exctinctions. There is quite a lot of proof of this.

        And as you yourself point out – the fact that we are altering the biosphere is beyond doubt.

        What I mean by the political umbrella is that there is a sore need to compartmentalize the issues to find common ground. When we politicize issues we tend to group them under a political umbrella and then it gets really hard to distinguish facts from politics and find common ground.

        The fact that we could find common ground on the basis of extinctions means I think you are being less productive by “umbrellaizing” the issue – even if what you say is true – I’m not really into the details on your specific issues – there are more productive political angles to it and this is the way politics should go in my opinion.

      2. RW,

        “rather more the “paleoclimatology” equivalent of species exctinctions.”

        First, I have no idea what that means. Second, I doubt I’ve discussed it – despite your assertion that I have. Can you provide an example?

        “is that there is a sore need to compartmentalize the issues to find common ground.”

        You keep using these wild generalizations, without providing specifics so that a reader can understand what you mean and to what you refer. I discuss specific issues on which we can find common ground – such as climate. I discuss broad issues around which we can organize, such as the need to stand together against the exploitive (and often incompetent) elites running America.

        Those are the two key perspectives of the FM website. I can’t imagine why you can’t see it.

        “The fact that we could find common ground on the basis of extinctions”

        What does that mean? When I ask you to explain, I mean be more specific – not produce another round of vague generalities.

  7. Larry,

    You misunderstand. I’m not being critical of any specifics of what you’ve said. I’m being critical of your political angle which could easily be interpreted as being anti-environmentalist regardless if you actually are.

    I realize politics may be very different globally and I think the US is over-politicized generally. My criticism is basically of the organization of politics and its constituents. You might consider that lame but so be it. Politics should be about specifics.

    The problem with the politics is that you are now being politically framed as not concerned about species extinction – a very real issue – or at the very least something of major anthropogenic influence historically speaking. So you’re putting yourself under that political umbrella, maybe subconsciously. People should be wary of umbrellas, since it erodes common political ground. Until we find better political organization models.

  8. Pingback: Energy & Environmental Newsletter: November 25, 2019 - Master Resource

  9. Pingback: Weekly Abstract of Power and Local weather Data No. 387 – Next Gadget

  10. Pingback: Energy And Environmental Newsletter – November 25th 2019 | PA Pundits - International

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: