The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Old New Ice Age
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Several months ago, I downplayed the observation that alarmism over putative global cooling was a generational precursor to the alarmism over global warming we’re experiencing now. The phrases “global cooling” and “global warming” were both scantily used–with similar frequency–from the 1950s through the 1970s. Then “global warming” began rocketing upward in the 1980s.

But I think my characterization was unfair.

To preface, I’m ignorant of the relevant history. My knowledge of it extends no further than what is presented here.

The problem was in the choice of phrase. The apocalyptic concerns about a global cold snap were more commonly referred to as the “new ice age” than as “global cooling”. And why not? An ice age sounds a lot more catastrophic than global cooling. The latter sounds relaxing–chill, if you will. Parenthetically, greens should rebrand “global warming” into something scarier, like “the great conflagration”. Now that’s something to break capitalism for!

From Google’s Ngram viewer:

Concerns about a “new ice age” did garner a lot more attention in the 50s, 60s, and 70s than concerns about “global warming” did. Climate concerns are a much bigger deal today than they ever were then, though:

 
• Category: History • Tags: Climate, History 
Hide 68 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. One minute 1979 scare video TV commercial, with famous Russian-Jewish Star Trek actor Leonard Nimoy who played ‘brilliant scientist Mr Spock’, warning about how ‘scientists’ had been recording the sinking temperatures, and a new Ice Age was likely coming shortly to freeze much of the earth, with hundreds of millions likely to die

  2. New Ice Age? Became a bit iffy after the oil Co’s spent millions in the 70’s & early 80’s investigating climate change of any kind. When they realized it was “warming” naturally they shut everything down & filed it all under “W” for “WANK”.

  3. Renoman says:

    You’re explanation is beyond me, I can barely decern what you are talking about.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @Twodees Partain
  4. Tiny Duck says:

    Greta Thunberg is rippng it up and has right wingers running scared

    Once the People see that you conservatives punch down and attack children they will see your true colors and vote you all out.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @MEH 0910
    , @Twinkie
  5. Parenthetically, greens should rebrand “global warming” into something scarier, like “the great conflagration”.

    The Big Heat. (It was an American Movie, but I like the excellent Anselmo Ballester poster for the Italian version.)

  6. There’s this twilight zone episode from 1961, which has the earth spiraling into the sun and everything melting… until the reveal at the end of the third act, when it turns out the new ice age is upon us, and the visions of melting earth were the fervent literal fever dreams of someone stuck in a New York beginning to be buried by snow.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Midnight_Sun

  7. unit472 says:

    The important thing is not the ‘climate’ but to cause panic. Even the worst case scenarios promoted by the doomsayers don’t occur in the lifespan of most people living today so only the most emotionally overwrought and mentally unstable people are going to ‘panic’ over what global temperatures might be in the 21st century.

    Actually I can think of nothing better than get the human population back down to the 2 billion or so it was in 1900 and if a dramatic change in climate wipes out 3/4 of mankind so much the better for the earth’s wildlife. Environmentalists should embrace climate change not seek to forestall it.

  8. Sparkon says:
    @Renoman

    You’re explanation is beyond me

    Please, for the love of good English, no apostrophes with personal pronouns!

    Your misuse of “you’re” is actually a contraction for “you are.” The apostrophe serves to indicate a letter has been omitted.

    Use “your” for the possessive personal pronoun of “you.”

    His, hers, ours, theirs, mine, yours, and its — no possessive personal pronouns in English use or require an apostrophe. It’s a rule.

    Similarly, virtually all plural nouns in English add an ‘s’ at the end, so no apostrophe is required to form plural, except in rare cases like “watch your p’s and q’s,” where the apostrophe is added only to avoid ambiguity, but ’50s, 747s, and teenage nitwits.

    Since climate on planet Earth is cyclical, there should be no surprise that warm periods are followed by cool periods, and followed again by warm periods such as the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, and our current Modern Warm Period, where temperatures have not yet exceeded those of the earlier warm periods. Who says so? Those ancient forests found beneath modern melting glaciers prove it was warmer in the remote past.

    Yes, those warm periods when civilizations flourished were interrupted by cool periods when humans didn’t do so well, such as the Dark Ages Cool Period following the Roman Warm period, and the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Periods, when the Vikings abandoned their farming colonies on Greenland, and when panicky, superstitious humans in Europe began burning innocent old women at the stake, and encouraged in their murderous efforts by none other than the misnamed Pope Innocent VIII who blamed it all on witchcraft.

    I’d bet the words Little Ice Age and/or witch hunts have never crossed the lips of that angry but ignorant teenager from Sweden who thinks she knows more than old guys like me.

    • Agree: Irish Savant
    • Replies: @Irish Savant
  9. The difference is that the 1950s-70s New Ice Age boom was never politicized or monetized in the way that today’s Global Warming scaremongering has been politicized and monetized.

  10. Twinkie says:

    I own farmland in the upper Midwest. In twenty years, I’ll be able to grow oranges there. Burn, baby, burn!

    • Replies: @iffen
  11. Twinkie says:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/09/05/feature/how-german-wine-found-its-sweet-spot/

    How German Wine Found Its Sweet Spot
    American connoisseurs have traditionally stayed away from German wine. A new generation of producers — and global warming — is changing that.

  12. 95Theses says:

    Now bring that über-privileged brat Greta Thunberg into the discussion and I will have to do some serious rethinking about that whole spanking issue. ツ

  13. I remember the new ice age talk very well. The difference between then and now is that the 1970s alarmist quacks weren’t blaming human activity for the expected catastrophe. It was just Earth doing Earth things. That makes the current zeitgeist much more dangerous.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  14. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Bragadocious

    When people stopped believing in religion and stopped believing in the Last Judgment they had to find a replacement for that belief in divine retribution. In the 50s they found it with nuclear war. Nuclear war was going to kill everybody and it was all our fault. It would be a punishment for the wickedness of our civilisation.

    By the late 70s nuclear war started to seem like a more and remote threat. In those days the grown-ups were in charge in both the U.S. and the Soviet Union and they were obviously not going to blow everything up. So a new source of retribution was needed. It was found in environmental disaster. Environmental disasters were going to kill everybody and it was all our fault. It would be a punishment for the wickedness of our civilisation.

    It’s just the same old same old. Same as it ever was.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Mr. Rational
  15. Screwtape says:
    @unit472

    lolz. Yes it is about the panic, or rather triggering the swollen amygdala types into becoming the useful idiots of the cult leaders.

    The pattern is classic cultist doom/salvation manipulation.

    More interesting is that you reject the cult of climate doom only to embrace its twisted twin sister, Malthusian anti-humanism “environmentalism”.

    Since Man is apparently not part of nature, climate hoaxing isn’t likely to kill 4B bad humans soon enough or even at all, and the best outcome is a mass culling of humans, I say you first.

    Population doom Environmentalists should kill themselves or STFU.

    Their unprincipled exceptionalism should be remediated into policy: bring on soylent green. Show us the way brave nature saviors.

    Or at the very least move to Nigeria or India and spend the rest of your polluting meatsack life handing out rubbers and/or toxic kool aid.

    The climate change panic is just thinly veiled anti-humanism: a suicide cult that is too cowardly to just do themselves for the sake of Nature. No, its always the other people that need to be enslaved.

    So perhaps the ancient savages were onto something and the panic stricken should be tossed into the volcanoes after all so the rest of us can go on creating generative, sane, and constructive endeavors to support an actual civilization.

    Or just buy a Tesla with that tax credit. That works too.

  16. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    When people stopped believing in religion and stopped believing in the Last Judgment they had to find a replacement for that belief in divine retribution.

    Very interesting observation; perhaps apocalyptic assumptions are ingrained in the human psyche. A result that I can think either is a result of revelation (since these are common themes across many religions) or even the human experience with multiple cataclysmic and even near-extinction events early in our history.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  17. Twinkie says:

    One thing I remember about the 70’s is that there was a lot of doomster movies, many starring my favorite actor Charlton Heston, e.g. some of the later Planet of the Apes movies, Omega Man, Soylent Green, etc. I think they, along with the zombie movies of the period, reflected the general fear of the apocalypse resulting from nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare in the popular psyche.

    It’s noteworthy, I think, that the cycle returned in the 2000’s (terrorism, war, political polarization) with several remakes, culminating in the Walking Dead in 2010, which was probably the apex of that trend.

  18. iffen says:
    @Twinkie

    I’m hoping to survive until my little spot of paradise at the edge of the coastal plain becomes top dollar “beach” property.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  19. On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

  20. MarkinLA says:
    @Tiny Duck

    If you decide to step in the ring, you deserve what you get. She isn’t a child she is exactly what that guy said – mentally ill and it’s not the Aspergers – its the stupidity of worrying about nothing when you are 17 years old.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  21. Ok Im sick of this! Greta is a brainwashed child that has been used by the big GREEN lobby (anti coal, anti oil anti human development)
    There is NO CLIMATE CHANGE DUE TO HUMANS!.
    I was trained in physics. There is NO greenhouse effect. CO2 is not a pollutant! As pushed by the EPA. CO2 is the life gas, we need MORE of it to feed the plants.
    There is NO geophysical / paleo record that shows ANY correlation between CO2 levels and climate CO2 does NOT control the climate!

    The IPCC was setup to redistribute the worlds wealth, which they have admitted. It is not about climate is is about wealth distribution by what only can be described as an eco-facist movement.
    The climate alarmists are loosing fast against the real scientists that have stood up to the constant LIES put out by the UN, WMO, IPCC. They are loosing because the REAL data is against them.
    NOTE: global warming was changed to ‘climate change’ as there has been no warming since 1997!
    Now they blame ALL bad weather on the fake notion of ‘climate change’
    Search the criminal and anti humanist Maurice Strong (RIP) and John P Holdrem, both criminals and anti human development. They setup the 1992 Rio earth summit (sponsored by the ROTHCHILDS!!) which was deliberately set to push the fake Global Warming scenario on the world.

    Heres a list of great sites proving the greatest scientific scam of the last century and this one.
    https://realclimatescience.com/
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/ theres hundreds more real data, more search them…

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  22. Well,

    when iread a two thousand year old reference that says there will come a time when men will desire to be women and women will desire to be men . . .

    I take notice.

  23. @Sparkon

    Anyone deploying ‘you’re’ the way Renoman did should be banned from the site for violence against basic grammar.

    • LOL: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  24. MEH 0910 says:
    @Tiny Duck

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  25. @unit472

    Support nuclear energy and oppose massive human migration into developed countries–if you’re not on board with those two obvious positions wrt combating climate change, you’re unserious.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Sparkon
  26. @iffen

    There should be a killing being made shorting contemporary coastal real estate and going long on real estate 500 yards off the coasts. Why isn’t there?

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  27. @MarkinLA

    I’m not even mildly sociopathic and I couldn’t help but start laughing at that lunacy.

  28. Talha says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    oppose massive human migration into developed countries

    This angle needs to be exploited more in order to point out the contradictory nature in the stance of the globalists.

    Peace.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @utu
  29. Twinkie says:
    @Tiny Duck

    Once the People see that you conservatives punch down and attack children

    I don’t want to punch her. I just think she needs counseling and perhaps psychiatric help, instead of being used as a prop by adults whose motives are not in her interests.

  30. utu says:
    @Talha

    Sierra Club used to have anti-immigration position until they have been taken over by new owners.

    https://cis.org/Sussis/Brief-Chronology-Sierra-Clubs-Retreat-ImmigrationPopulation-Connection-Updated
    The Sierra Club, one of America’s largest non-profit environmental organizations, once treated the effects of immigration-driven population growth as among the most serious concerns facing America’s environment.

    That same year, the Los Angeles Times reported that David Gelbaum, an American businessman focused on green technology who has donated at least $200 million to the Sierra Club, had warned Carl Pope that his donations were contingent upon how the club handled the issue of immigration. “I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me,” the Times reported he said.

    • Replies: @Talha
  31. Twinkie says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    I’m starting to entertain the possibility that Trump might actually be a chaotic genius. I mean if that tape actually turns out to be a huge nothing-burger, Biden is sunk, lots of Dem congressional seats in moderate districts would be lost to them, and Trump beats Pocahontas to victory. That can’t be true. It’s too good to be true.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  32. Talha says:
    @utu

    Wow – interesting, thanks! Follow the money, I guess.

    Peace.

  33. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Talha

    perhaps apocalyptic assumptions are ingrained in the human psyche. A result that I can think either is a result of revelation (since these are common themes across many religions) or even the human experience with multiple cataclysmic and even near-extinction events early in our history.

    Yes. For most of human history people lived in the shadow of potential disaster – famines, plagues, earthquakes, wars. It was possibly more comforting to think that there was some reason behind these disasters rather than just blind chance. If they were divine retribution then you could do something about it – make sure that rituals were being performed properly, ask for divine forgiveness, turn your back on sin, etc.

    And with both nuclear war and environmental apocalypses there’s that very strong emphasis on disasters as a punishment for sin. And that appeals to people who like to feel righteous – everyone else is a guilty sinner but I’m not because I recycle and I’m a vegan and I drive a Prius. Or everyone else is a guilty sinner but I’m not because I go to nuclear disarmament marches and I have a peace symbol bumper sticker.

    Which means that when the global warming scam runs its course it will be replaced by another looming disaster that is all our fault and is a punishment for some new set of sins.

    Rinse and repeat.

    Modern politics is essentially theology for atheists.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Audacious Epigone
  34. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    I am old enough to remember when world population growth was the putative world wide grim reaper. Now it is just the grim reaper for Northern European countries and their settler descendants.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @dfordoom
  35. Jeffoto says:

    In an online lesson* on Acceleration, the graphs showing Distance vs. Time can be applied to “sea level rise” of oceanography. But also Speed vs. Distance is another acceleration form. Two forms, but Democrats only think there’s one kind of acceleration.
    Climate alarmists confuse two things: velocity speed vs distance speed (over same period of time).
    These two graphs show the difference.
    Sea levels always ebb and flow between ice ages, when the polar regions increase or decrease in size. But the way to know if it’s natural or manmade is seeing if the sea level graphs go from straight and steady, to curved and increasing… Do they?
    The NOAA sea level graphs are all straight and steady all over the world for the last 150 years. Half that time (recent most industrial 75 years) should show an upward-curving (not still straight) graph, as fossil fuels emitted more CO2 — if the Earth couldn’t absorb it naturally.
    But, as NOAA’s own graphs show, they don’t increase in sea level speed (height distance over time). Democrats see steady acceleration graphs since 150 years ago, but think it’s increasing speed in sea level height. It’s not, because the sea level graphs are straight, even in places where sea levels are falling (e.g.: Sweden https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=050-141 ).
    Therefore, we can conclude the Earth is absorbing CO2 and there’s no “melting” global ice (it may evaporate from sublimation** instead). The global greenspace has increased as CO2 levels went up — helping crop yields too.

    * Dem Q: “but why is street flooding worse along beaches and rivers?”
    A: local and regional water management planning and local sinking ground from subsidence ***
    * Dem Q: “but why do I see global temperatures rising and it’s so hot in Australia in December?”
    A: actual thermometer records show it was hotter many times before now, when CO2 levels and fossil fuel use was lower; plus the alarmists altered the historic records in their fake science research and press releases. The seasons are opposite in southern vs. northern hemisphere.

    NOAA graphs are all straight:
    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_us.html

    (* http://data.allenai.org/tqa/acceleration_L_0722/
    ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28phase_transition%29
    *** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidence )

  36. Talha says:
    @iffen

    I remember “killer bees” as a kid and being so worried that I tried to convince my parents to move to Canada.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @dfordoom
  37. Talha says:
    @iffen

    I shouldn’t laugh, that scare allowed me to get some sweet IT consulting gigs straight out of college and support my nascent family.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  38. anon[634] • Disclaimer says:

    The thing about science is that it produces testable hypotheses. It doesn’t traffic in “eternal truths” because such certainties exist only in human imagination, in the understandable yearning for the world and life to make some kind of sense. They do not. As science develops more sophisticated methodologies, it examines theories for validity, rejects what is not longer demonstrable, moves on to apply new techniques to generate new –and also tentative- conclusions.

    If there is even a remote chance, let alone the body of evidence we now have, that we are damaging the planet’s capacity to support large human populations, might it be prudent to commit whatever resources it might take to deal with it? Instead, the same public relations firms that lied on behalf of the tobacco lobby are generating reams of pseudo-science to support the crackpot theory that economic growth is magically immune to natural limits.

    Long ago Plato observed that humanity has a fundamental deficiency: we are irresistibly attracted to the irrational. We will fight to the death to preserve our right to deny reality. Our illusions warm our hearts and appeal to our vanity; but reason, which demands rigorous honesty plus humility, leaves humans generally frustrated and dissatisfied.

    The history of our species is that our populations expand until they outstrip the local food supply, and when it crashes, those who didn’t perish in the famine move on to new lands to despoil. But now with seven billion of us, we are finally running out of space. As Einstein observed at the dawn of the Atomic Era, everything has changed, except our thinking, and so we toward unparalleled catastrophe.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  39. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    I am old enough to remember when world population growth was the putative world wide grim reaper.

    Yeah, that came in between the nuclear war doom thing and the environmental doom thing. Hundreds of millions were going to starve to death before the end of the 1970s. And it was all our fault for not doing something about it.

  40. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Talha

    I remember “killer bees” as a kid and being so worried that I tried to convince my parents to move to Canada.

    Maybe you saw the movie The Swarm? An awesomely bad but incredibly fun 1978 killer bees movie. Directed by Irwin Allen! Michael Caine gets to deliver the classic line:

    “We’ve been fighting a losing battle against the insects for fifteen years, but I never thought I’d see the final face-off in my lifetime. And I never dreamed that it would turn out to be the bees. They’ve always been our friends.”

    It’s even better if you see it as a double feature with Empire of the Ants, the Joan Collins vs killer ants classic. A great movie although not as good as the Charlton Heston vs the killer ants movie, The Naked Jungle.

    You just can’t make a bad movie about killer insects.

    • Replies: @Talha
  41. Sparkon says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Support nuclear energy and oppose massive human migration into developed countries–if you’re not on board with those two obvious positions wrt combating climate change, you’re unserious.

    You can’t be serious if you recommend nuclear energy for “combating climate change.”

    Climate change is cyclical, and is almost certainly driven by our Sun, which like most stars is variable (although less so than most) so all the “combating” is money wasted, or rather money transferred from our pockets to theirs.

    It’s a scam.

    We have mountains of coal — enough coal to last for centuries by some estimates.

    Why on Earth is it “obvious” to get “on board” with a complicated, dangerous solution to our energy needs, when we have a relatively safe, inexpensive solution at hand?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  42. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    That movie certainly didn’t help the situation – have no clue why I even watched it since I was so scared of the whole bee thing. I guess kids do stupid things.

    The one thing that really got me was a news report or something that had these projections on a map of how these killer bees would move up from Mexico and engulf California up through Oregon – I was really upset. Anyway, my parents calmed me down and let me know Canada was not an option. And then the newest GI Joe comic or the newest pack of Garbage Pail Kids came out or something and then I eventually forgot about it.

    Peace.

  43. @Renoman

    “You’re explanation is beyond me, I can barely decern what you are talking about.”

    What are you struggling to say?

  44. @Twinkie

    Damn it. I was just thinking the same thing.

    The jokes about Biden’s senescence aside, if he gets the nomination he will beat Trump. It’s not just that the polls show him ~5-10 points better against Trump than other Dems, it’s that they show that 5-10 points coming from moderate Obama 08/12 voters who stayed home or voted for Trump in 2016. That difference will make the upper midwest states–MI, WI, PA–unwinnable for Trump.

    If Biden gets the nomination, the Ukraine corruption story won’t sink him because the corporate media won’t let it. He has to be torpedoed now.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  45. @dfordoom

    Modern politics is essentially theology for atheists.

    I should start doing the CH “comment of the week” posts so other readers don’t miss things like this.

    • Agree: Talha
  46. @iffen

    I want that back, that time when the internet was celebrated as the intellectual wild west.

    Who thought in 1999 that twenty years later the internet would have become the most dangerous place for intellectual curiosity?

  47. @Talha

    Talha: “Nah, you’re fine. You don’t need to do anything to any of your systems. It’s all a bunch of hype.

    Check please!”

    • Replies: @Talha
  48. @anon

    So you’re a big proponent of nuclear power, right?

    • Replies: @Talha
  49. Talha says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    My main gig was at a major university-connected hospital in SoCal. They weren’t about to take risks since people’s lives were on the line. I wasn’t digging through source-code written in the 70’s (thank God!!!) like some guys. May main thing was building a database to inventory every single piece of equipment they had that could possibly be affected.

    Good times – paid well too. Only thing bad was that – since I was a consultant – they set us up in the hospital’s server room (I had to bring close to a winter jacket to work every day).

    Peace.

  50. @Sparkon

    That’s not a judgment on the validity of concerns over climate change, only a request for consistency in position of those who are concerned by it.

  51. Twinkie says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    will

    I don’t like that helping verb. It is prognosticatory, and I have a very dim view of fortune tellers. 😉

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  52. @Twinkie

    Fair in the general case and certainly in the particular case. After all, this is coming from the person who predicted a Kamala Harris nomination!

  53. @unit472

    The important thing is not the ‘climate’ but to cause panic.

    Hogwash.  This issue was being discussed in calm, sober language for decades… while nothing was done.  LBJ issued a statement about it.  Years before LBJ, this dramatized (because popular) but far from panicky treatment hit the brand-new medium of television:

    That was nineteen-fifty-freaking-EIGHT.  If we’d started doing something THEN, there would be no urgency NOW.

    Even the worst case scenarios promoted by the doomsayers don’t occur in the lifespan of most people living today so only the most emotionally overwrought and mentally unstable people are going to ‘panic’ over what global temperatures might be in the 21st century.

    Why do you hate your grandchildren?

    Actually I can think of nothing better than get the human population back down to the 2 billion or so it was in 1900 and if a dramatic change in climate wipes out 3/4 of mankind so much the better for the earth’s wildlife. Environmentalists should embrace climate change not seek to forestall it.

    Do you think that heat waves and desertification only affect humans?  Just ONE heat wave killed a third of an entire species of bats in Australia.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46859000

    Humans currently have the technology to live anywhere in the world, and maintain e.g. small breeding populations of penguins and polar bears far from their home habitats.  If our civilization collapses due to climate change, that technology won’t be there any more… for us or anything else.  And many of the formerly-clement habitats will be gone too.  Wildlife will be far harder-hit than humans.  Environmentalists are against anthropogenic climate change for good reason, and anyone who thinks humans are good should too.  We are all in this together.

  54. @dfordoom

    And what about depleting aquifers and eroding topsoil?  Are those just moral panics as well, or are they real things that are going to affect millions of people in the lifetimes of Americans already born?

    It was salt that killed the agricultural civilization of Sumer.  Irrigation water brought salt in, nothing carried it away, and the salt built up to toxic levels and made farming impossible.  Today farmers who irrigate know that they have to drain off water to carry away the salts and preserve the fertility of their soil.  Do you think that anyone talking about this existential threat, back before drainage was understood, was just a fearmonger?

    Thinking about physical and chemical issues in ideological terms is a sure-fire sign of a total fool.

  55. @BlackDragon

    I was trained in physics.

    Not very well.  Ever heard of the black-body radiation equation?  Obviously not, or you wouldn’t have said that.

    There is NO greenhouse effect.

    The equation for the thermal radiation from a blackbody (a perfect absorber/emitter at all wavelengths) is 5.67*10^-8 W/m²/K^4.  You multiply by the fourth power of the absolute temperature (in Kelvins, not Rankine) and it yields the radiated thermal flux in watts per square meter.

    The Earth absorbs about 240 W of sunlight per m² of surface area (NOT the disc facing the sun, the total surface).  Working the blackbody equation backwards, a blackbody radiating 240 W/m² has a temperature of 255 K, or roughly 0 degrees F.

    Do you seriously think that Earth’s average surface temperature is 0 degrees F?

    Earth’s actual average surface temperature is 16 C (289 K), at which temperature a blackbody radiates about 396 W/m².  The 156 W/m² difference is made up by heat absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated back to the ground.  THAT is the greenhouse effect.  It is very real, and human civilization would be impossible without it.  But you can have too much of a good thing.

    CO2 is not a pollutant!

    ANYTHING IN EXCESS is a pollutant.  Phosphate is essential to life; in excess, it’s a water pollutant.  Ditto nitrate.  Lake Erie is largely clean again thanks to limits on phosphate emissions.  The Gulf of Mexico dead zone is due to anoxic algal blooms caused by excess nitrate washing down the Mississippi.

    Atmospheric CO2 is okay at 300 ppm; at 400 ppm, it’s definitely a pollutant.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  56. Muggles says:

    The thing is, when “global warming” became “climate change” (due to “inconvenient facts”) it became basically unarguable.

    Does anyone make the claim that the climate never changes? No one? So taking that “position” is absurd. Hence “climate change” is always true. Now some argue warmer, others colder, but that is now buried in the new propaganda term. Heads I win tails you lose.

    Demanding more taxes, statism, bureaucracy and crazy lifestyle mandates due to “fighting climate change” is akin to arguing the same solutions to “fight gravitational tyranny.” An endless war against Nature.

    For the modern cult of Statism there is no imaginary evil that cannot be stopped with enough doses of more government mandates and fiscal extortion of the productive classes.

    Makes you almost long for the good old days of Classical Marxism. At least some poor soul on an assembly line might win a longer pee break. Alas, no longer. Now they must drink their barely recycled pee to somehow “save the planet.”

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  57. @Audacious Epigone

    1. The time horizon is too long 2. Federal Flood Insurance and similar programs and 3. There are no coastline-only REIT ETFs avail atm.

  58. @Irish Savant

    Your plan will make the Internet a lonely place.

    I like that.

  59. Twinkie says:
    @Mr. Rational

    ANYTHING IN EXCESS is a pollutant.

    Oxygen is likewise vital to life… Too much of it can lead to all sorts of negative consequences.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

    Life is in balance.

  60. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Muggles

    Makes you almost long for the good old days of Classical Marxism.

    Yep. Classical Marxists seem quite sane compared to the Social Justice Warriors and climate change zealots of today. Classical Marxists were addressing genuine problems and genuine injustices rather than imaginary problems.

    When your starting point is an imaginary problem it’s inevitable that you’re going to spiral down into out-and-out madness.

  61. This is matter is very simple for me. To make the case for climate change, make some predictions that pan out. Thus far the predictions have not been born out by the consequence. Is the Earth warming maybe. In my view it appears as though the Earth has been in a constant state of cooling since its origins.

    And if it is warming:

    1. there doesn’t seem to be any consensus when it started.

    2. the volume difference between man made and naturally produced pollutants remains a mystery as to impact.

    3. there has been no rebuttal to impacts such as magnetic field fluctuations or dissipation

    4, shifts in space of our existence in the “goldie locks” region

    5. there’s consensus on local impacts from cause and effect on a global level

    Pollution is an important issue. And there is no question that humans can negatively impact the environments they require to live. No question that humans should attend to the planet as effective stewards. That is not an unreasoned proposition/expectation.

    But I do not buy the doomsday scenarios advanced and I certainly don’t think the tactics used by its advocates really help make that case.

    And frankly, one’s credentials are not a substitute for a case that adds up.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  62. dfordoom says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    Pollution is an important issue. And there is no question that humans can negatively impact the environments they require to live. No question that humans should attend to the planet as effective stewards. That is not an unreasoned proposition/expectation.

    But I do not buy the doomsday scenarios advanced and I certainly don’t think the tactics used by its advocates really help make that case.

    And frankly, one’s credentials are not a substitute for a case that adds up.

    Agreed.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS