The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
Global Warming Is Real Say the Academies of Sciences of All of the Major Countries, But a Handful of My Readers Know Better
🔊 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

I am fortunate in having readers who look after me. Some have offered me refuge in their countries and their homes from what they expect otherwise will inevitably be the midnight knock on my door. Others correct my mistakes from typos to content. As I have never considered myself infallible, I carefully read what they have to say.

Usually those who want to straighten me out on a subject are polite and respectful. However, among those corrections brought in by my reporting on the dangers implied by the warming of the poles and melting of the ice were a few not merely ignorant and uninformed, but also condescending and rude. One even accused me of selling out to the climate change hoax in order to buy my way off the lists of Russian agents and fake news purveyors.

I thought this was a bit much. Of course, the reader could have been a polluting industry troll. I also detected in the comments of some a good brainwashing by carbon industry-funded climate science.

It is difficult for those of us who are not climate scientists to form an opinion with confidence. Even climate scientists have honest disagreements. However, as far as I can tell, it is the carbon industry-funded scientists and think tanks that deny global warming, and it is independent scientists who say it is occurring and who are concerned with the implications.

I always ask the Roman question, who benefits? Some libertarians and free market advocates explain what they dismiss as the “global warming hoax” as a plot against capitalsim by left-wing climate scientists. So where are the right-wing or conservative or merely honest climate scientists? Are all or most independent climate scientists left-wing? Do all honest ones work for the carbon industry?

I find it difficult to believe that the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the European Space Agency, The University of Bremen’s Institute of Physical Analysis, the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Danish National Space Center, The Russian Academy of Sciences, the UK Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Science Council of Japan, the Accademia dei Lincei of Italy, the French Academie des Sciences, the Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias, Canada’s Royal Society, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Indian National Science Academy are in a conspiracy against capitalism. “Climate change is real” declares the Joint Science Academies’ statement. http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Climate change deniers make much of a Russian scientist’s claim that we are all about to freeze to death, but the Russian Academy of Sciences agrees with all the other countries’ academies of science that global warming is real.

Now, compare this impressive group with the Koch and carbon industry funded climate change deniers. What interest do scientific organizations all over the world have in orchestrating a false issue? There is no obvious answer to this. However, the interest of polluters is obvious. To avert potentially cataclysmic consequences of global warming implies a reduction in the use of carbon-based energy. This reduction adversely affects the profits of carbon-based energy producers.

My article, which is mainly about the road we are on to thermo-nuclear war, reports as a second cataclysmic or apocalyptic event, the sudden release of massive methane locked in Arctic ice and permafrost. That such a thing could happen seems not to be controversial. The corrections I received from my readers focused on the melting Arctic ice. There is nothing unusual, I am assured, about the ice melt in summer. It always melts and then it refreezes.

Yes, of course, this is true. But what those setting me straight seem not to know is that each year more of the ice melts, but less refreezes and is much thinner. Moreover, the former impenetrable Arctic Northwest Passage has now thawed so much that the passage is open to cruise ships and freighter traffic.

So, if there is no global warming, why is the Arctic ice cap receding, which it most definitely is doing? Indeed, unambigious evidence shows that both North and South poles are losing ice. Apparently, in the Arctic this is because as the ice, which reflects the sunlight, recedes, the darker areas of the sea, which hold the sun’s heat, take its place. In the Anarctic, the ice appears to be melting because warmer water is melting the ice from below. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stable-antarctic-ice-is-suddenly-melting-fast/

Below is a sample of various real news reports on the shrinkage of Arctic ice in the 21st century. The shrinkage is unprecedented in recorded history.

For what appears to be the first time in recorded history, a direct seagoing route from Europe to Asia, around the north side of Canada, is ice free.

The opening of the Northwest Passage is among the most conspicuous results of global warming and average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere.

Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year. Arctic sea ice decline has rendered the waterways more navigable.

The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else on the planet. The extent of Arctic sea ice, which melts to its low each September, has steadily declined over the past three decades, as the chart below illustrates. The years 2007–2012 saw the six lowest levels since satellite imaging began in 1979. The trend is likely unmatched in recent human history, reported a UN panel on climate change in 2013.

We have seen the ice-covered area drop to just around 3 million sq km which is about 1 million sq km less than the previous minima of 2005 and 2006. There has been a reduction of the ice cover over the last 10 years of about 100 000 sq km per year on average, so a drop of 1 million sq km in just one year is extreme.

Beyond surface area, recent data indicate that Arctic sea ice is also younger and thinner, and hence more inclined to melt. Less white ice and more dark sea means that more solar radiation is absorbed, accelerating the thaw.

Of course, we could dismiss these facts, as a few of my readers do, on the basis of faith that it will all turn around. But we should at least have a basis for our faith.

The thawing of the Northwest Passage was predicted in 2002. No doubt the scientists who predicted the thawing were ridiculed for their fake news and plot against capitalism. The thawing actually occurred three years before the predicted date.

ORDER IT NOW

Whereas I am proud that my readers show their willingness to protect me from threats and error, I am saddened to learn that a few of them read me in order to have their prior beliefs confirmed and that when my columns do not confirm their prior beliefs, they kiss me good-bye with rude, aggressive, and condescending words.

The reason to read me is to learn to notice and think for yourself. If you read me, or anyone, for confirmation of your prior beliefs, you are not doing yourself a favor. Uninformed prior beliefs are part of The Matrix. So is carbon industry brainwashing.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: Global Warming 
Hide 20 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Cui bono is not the question. Quid facere – what to do?

    There is not a way outside of the third world to have any effect on carbon output. If you cut the US back to the Civil War era levels, third world population increases wipe out those gains before your great-granddaughter gets knocked up by a Somalian.

    If you want to reduce carbon output then you better warm up your ICBMs – and in a hurry if the climate changers are to be believed.

  2. Dutch Boy says:

    Dr, Roberts: scientific claims in general must be taken with many grains of salt, since scientists are subject to ideological and financial influences that warp their judgement (and the situation is getting worse, not better):
    https://scimedskeptic.wordpress.com/

  3. pyrrhus says:

    If the author had a scientific education, or read what the hundreds of real scientists write on Wattsupwiththat about climate, he might write something intelligent. Neither seems to be the case…

    • Replies: @george strong
  4. Even the best of the libertarians and constitutionalists can go through phases of idiocy. This claptrap by the formerly admirable Paul Craig Roberts is one such episode.

    Talk to a mechanical engineer, Mr. Roberts, and ask him about the difficulty of modelling an extremely complex system like the climate of the world. It is hard enough when one has a very good handle on all the processes involved. It’s impossible when some of the processes involved (causes of the ice ages) are not even fully known.

    Start at this topic key, Global Climate Stupidity on my Peak Stupidity blog to learn something – I have a 5-part series of posts on the mathematical modeling (no math in these posts, it’s descriptive stuff) and a 5-part series on the political aspect of Global Climate Disruption, along with a few other fill-in posts.

    There is no working mathematical model of the climate of the Earth; understanding that is step one on the road off the peak of stupidity (you’re awful close with this awful post, Roberts!)

    • Replies: @Ricky
  5. Sparkon says:

    No one disputes that there is global warming. Without global warming, large parts of N. America would still be buried under ice sheets a mile thick.

    All that ice melted or receded without humans playing any possible role because climate change is entirely natural, and it is an ongoing process. Climate has changed in the past, sometimes suddenly and drastically, and it will change again in the future, irrespective of how much of our wealth we squander trying to stop it, and in any event, human civilizations have prospered during periods of global warming, and they have crashed during periods of global cooling.

    In more recent times, we know that Earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age, when storms, failing crops, and advancing glaciers prompted Pope Innocent VIII to issue a papal bull blaming all these misfortunes–and many others–on witches. Thousands of these unfortunate, innocent, but falsely-accused souls were burned alive at the stake, all because of ignorant, superstitious, hysterical humans needed to find some scapegoats for their misfortune of experiencing natural climate change.

    Over 500 years beyond Summis desiderantes affectibus, alarmists have gone from blaming innocent “witches” for climate change, to blaming the innocent and beneficial trace gas CO₂, a by-product of burning fossil fuels, which are our most abundant, and economical sources of base-load energy, which we need to run our modern civilization.

    But mankind’s contribution to global atmospheric CO₂ is about 3%, the rest comes from entirely natural sources like rotting vegetation, and the oceans.

    In the ice core records, levels of CO₂ lag behind temperature, because rising CO₂ is an effect of global warming, and not its cause. In the same way that your beer or soda goes flat as it warms and loses carbonation, so too do the oceans give off CO₂ as they warm, with a several hundred year lag behind increased temperature.

    All the impractical, unreliable, intermittent, complicated and expensive energy sources like wind turbines and solar arrays cost more than they are worth, and are thus a bleeding wound on our economy, giving advantage to our competitors and rivals.

    Yes, global warming is real, and so is global cooling, because climate changes. I don’t think it’s a good idea to go broke trying to stop climate change, in the process giving up the cheap, reliable energy sources we may really need if perchance global cooling returns with a vengeance.

    It looks like a fool’s errand from here.

  6. Three points:

    (1) I cut my teeth, just out of grad school with a newly minted Ph.D., running system dynamics models exactly like those the AGW crowd uses except my models were of much simpler and better understood systems. The current AGW models are insanely sensitive to extremely minor alterations in parameters. The current parameters of these models are mostly guestimates and invariably biased in a direction to support AGW, e.g., the effects of water vapor as a hot house gas versus the albedo increasing effects of water vapor. I think the issues are too obvious to need further comment but I invite interested readers to compare the AGW crowd’s predictions from twenty years age with current reality.

    (2) I have significant statistical training and experience; enough to know that when analyzing trends in time-series data and possible correlations and causalities among these trends, the appropriate methods are Box-Jenkins techniques and the ARIMA analyses upon which these techniques are based (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box%E2%80%93Jenkins_method). The AGW crowd are either unaware of these techniques or refuse to use them. Their statistical analyses of weather date are primitive, flawed and misleading. I’ve seen two(!) ARIMA analyses of recent temperature trends in my admittedly limited search of the literature. Both found that the most statistically accurate model of these trends was a random walk, i.e., that for the past several decades at least temperatures have been neither rising nor declining in any statistically verifiable way.

    (3) Climate variation is constant. The primary causes, by orders of magnitude greater than any others, e.g.,, levels of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere, are poorly understood fluctuations of solar radiation and long term variations in the declination of Earth’s axis of rotation with respect to the ecliptic. The AGW crowd’s models treat these as fixed, exogenous variables, which is about as far from the case as can be.

    We are somewhere into the start or middle of the last ice age which began about a million years ago. Ice ages are characterized by lower temperatures than are normal for the earth and punctuated by glaciations which last for on the order of say 25, 000 years and are characterized by cold, dry worldwide climate and the advance of glacier sheets from the north into the mid latitudes. The last glaciation ended some 10,000 years ago. Before then the current location of New York City, to cite one example, was under a half mile sheet of ice. Current theories relate these massive changes in climate to Milankovitch cycles (Too complicated to explain briefly. See here for details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) and possibly long term variations in solar output.

    We know absolutely from historical observations that within the last thousand years or so variations in solar output, e.g., the Maunder Minimum, the Dalton Minimum, the Sporer Minimum, have caused mini ice ages. We are still recovering from the last of these. During the so-called Medieval Climactic Optimum, just over a millennium ago, temperatures were much warmer and human life was much more pleasant, e.g. grapes were growing in Newfoundland, wheat farming was possible in Greenland, and viniculture was a major economic activity in England. The AGW crowd utterly ignore or dismiss these facts which are highly inconvenient for their theories and political arguments.

    Mr. Roberts: I’ve presented you with three irrefutable and completely scientific arguments
    against the assertions of the AGW crowd and your argument to authority. . I’d be interested in reading your response.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  7. Like all but literally a few readers here, I’m wholly incapable of making a sound judgement on whether humans are significantly responsible for global warming. There’s simply no way any of us can make an informed decision.

    That makes this debate extraordinarily difficult.

    To some degree, this lack of knowledge should lead us to simply going with the consensus amongst climate scientists and be done with it. And if this were a physics problem, that’s what I’d do. However, climate science brings in models and models are sketchy at best. That’s my big problem. I know economic and financial models and they’re fairly worthless. At the very least, I wouldn’t trust them as the basis for overhauling the world economy.

    Scott Adams made some very good points here. If someone can answer his questions, I’d very likely get on board the man-made global warming train.

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158778029326/how-to-change-my-biases-on-climate-science

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158404087241/the-survivor-bias-in-climate-models

  8. Climate change is real, we don’t need no stinkin’ academics to know it. The real question is: to what extent is it a result of human activity?

  9. @pyrrhus

    PCR has now outed himself as an idiot. All informed people know about how they falsified the data to fit into the GW narrative and models. It has always been a scam for carbon tax money to Goldman Sachs and Al Gore, and gov’t grant money to lying “scientists”.

  10. It was in the 70’s all through January and February in Northern Illinois. This is about the third winter in the past decade that was like this. This never happened in the 1970’s, 1980’s or 1990’s. Also, scientists predicted that with climate change, there would be great swings in the weather, with some really warmer than normal winters and some colder than normal winters . This has been happening for the past decade as there were some winters that had weeks below -20 degrees and, like I said, other winters that had 70 degree days in January. It seems to me that the climate scientists have been correct, at least for the weather in the past 10 years or so.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  11. Svigor says:

    First thing I noticed about your piece was that nowhere did you link global warming and human industry. For all you know, the planet is warming on its own, as it has done for millions of years, when it wasn’t cooling. The corrolary would be that man’s efforts in the other direction would have little or no (good) effect, either.

    One thing I find interesting is the assumption that increased CO2 levels are a simple negative. Plants love CO2. They used to grow on Antarctica, back when the planet was warm enough to sustain life there, btw. This is probably why “greenhouse effect” didn’t catch on the way “global warming” did.

    However, as far as I can tell, it is the carbon industry-funded scientists and think tanks that deny global warming, and it is independent scientists who say it is occurring and who are concerned with the implications.

    Why yes, NOAA strikes me as perfectly independent. Maybe people show you disrespect because you type howlers like that?

    I always ask the Roman question, who benefits? Some libertarians and free market advocates explain what they dismiss as the “global warming hoax” as a plot against capitalsim by left-wing climate scientists. So where are the right-wing or conservative or merely honest climate scientists? Are all or most independent climate scientists left-wing? Do all honest ones work for the carbon industry?

    There’s this new thing, it’s called a web search. They can summon up all these newfangled web sites and blogs…

    I find it difficult to believe that the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the European Space Agency, The University of Bremen’s Institute of Physical Analysis, the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Danish National Space Center, The Russian Academy of Sciences, the UK Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Science Council of Japan, the Accademia dei Lincei of Italy, the French Academie des Sciences, the Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias, Canada’s Royal Society, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Indian National Science Academy are in a conspiracy against capitalism.

    Consensus doesn’t have to mean conspiracy, of course. It also doesn’t have to mean correctness. I bet they’d all tell you a pack of pretty lies about race, too, every last one of them. The ship has sailed on simply trusting our institutions to tell us the truth. They’ve been caught in too many lies for that. You can substitute delusion for deception here, as much as you like, the effect’s the same.

    Nature is moved not at all by consensus.

    What interest do scientific organizations all over the world have in orchestrating a false issue?

    Well, for one thing, going along to get along. Look at how insane the advocates are driven by dissent. Anger enough people, and your job or your funding could be on the line.

    In more recent times, we know that Earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age, when storms, failing crops, and advancing glaciers prompted Pope Innocent VIII to issue a papal bull blaming all these misfortunes–and many others–on witches.

    I’ll take your word for it. In any case, it’s the perfect analogy for climate alarmism.

    All the data the scientific bureaucrats have been caught fudging and falsifying that gives me pause.

  12. Parbes says:

    Another great article, congratulations. Most dogmatic “free-market-and-free-trade-über-alles” ideologues are nothing more than ignorant demagogues.

  13. Svigor says:

    Raise your hand if you think China’s going to sacrifice to fight Global Warming?

    K, put your hands down.

    Now raise your hand if you think China’s going to play us like suckers, using Global Warming?

    • Replies: @Ricky
  14. Ricky says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Can’t agree more ! A long time follower of Roberts, this sudden crossover to support the global warming insanity is very strange. Possibly caused by his recent appointment to the list of Fake News Sites that are to be avoided, the potential loss of financial contributions tend to be a potent stimulus. He’s seen the last of my money and I’ve removed my Email address from his mailing list. For those of you who are considering the same action, there is no Unsubscribe at the bottom of the page, you’ll have to search through the various pages to find the one that allows you to end your participation !

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  15. Ricky says:
    @Svigor

    Hand raised, you’ve got that right !

  16. @Dutch Boy

    so-o-o, AGW can ONLY be either PC or real, but not both ? ? ?
    better take your fingers out of your ears, l’il dutch boy…

  17. @Jus' Sayin'...

    Just Saying: I am familiar with mathematical modeling and the extreme difficulty of making a model work for anything involving more than a few physical processes. The thing is, I had accidentally skipped over to the summation of Mr. Robert’s episode of idiocy, and thought my comment (the one above) had been deleted. There are a bunch of comments on the next article.

    Otherwise, I’d have written back to you 2 days ago telling you what a great comment that is. People think that, because one can obtain computer output that’s very precise with 3-D grid-lines with different color shades to indicate the good, the bad, and the ugly, that it means this output means ANYTHING AT ALL. Precision does not equal accuracy. If Americans (not to mention columnists) were more numerate, people would have realized how much of a scam this whole thing is longer ago. They are waking up now.

    Anyway, it was very nice to read an erudite comment like yours, JS. I hope you end up reading this, even though the thread is dead.

  18. @Ricky

    Thanks for the reply, Ricky. I’d been on the wrong page, literally*, as the kids say now about every damn thing. I had gotten to the 2nd stupid column and commented there. I don’t usually join up to get emails from anyone unless I’m forced to for business, but I’ll keep this guy off my radar from now on.

    It’s not really the idea “hey, he doesn’t completely conform to my viewpoint” – it’s more like “if he can write 2 stupid columns like this, maybe he’s is not the smart man I took him for in the past – what other crap has he written that I’ve accepted due to my lack of knowledge on the subject – say some of the history of US out-of-control gov’t that he writes about?”.

    Lastly, you may be right. He could have bailed on principles and no longer is seeking the truth. That’d be a shame.

    * OK, not completely literally, as these aren’t “pages” in the sense of paper pages.

  19. @Mike Zwick

    I’ve noticed the weather changing too. One time, back in band camp, we had 10 in. of snow here in the lowlands of North Carolina. I can’t remember what year; it was long ago. Then it got really hot in the summer the coupla years I worked that fish hatchery, what with using the bush axes and shovels all day long.

    I don’t like the way the weather changes so much. Mars might be better, but it’s too cold in general. I’d go to Venus, but I don’t like too much humidity either.

    There’s always San Diego. I don’t think anyone can complain about the climate there, but there are Mexicans to complain about.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS