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 Wrapup
🔊 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

The mental convolutions in which some will engage in order to ignore the evidence that the polar ice caps are melting—and if not from warming from what?—is as astounding as the convolutions and denial of basic facts that characterize those who believe the government’s official 9/11 fairy tale.

If all science is rigged, as a few of you say, by the Bilderbergs, Rockefeller, or the Rothchilds, then where does your science, your information come from? If there is no reliable scientific information about climate change, what is the basis for your argument? Why are only carbon industry spokespersons honest? How come the Rothchilds didn’t rig them also?

Yes, the carbon tax is another way of following the money, but it obviously leads in the opposite direction of where a few want to take it. The carbon tax is not a solution offered by climate scientists. It is the industry solution backed by the industry’s free market libertarian allies and Wall St, which sees it as another profitable trading vehicle. The industry sees it as a replacement for regulation and emphasis on alternative green energy sources.

The readers who assured me that the polar ice always melts in summer and refreezes in winter did not know that more melts than refreezes and that the polar ice cap is shrinking dramatically.

The readers who said that there is no global warming now say that it is natural and not man-made, that it has happened before, and so on, which means next to nothing. The biosphere evolved in a way that supports life. When the delicate balance is altered, life dies out. With 150 years of deforestation while 1,500 gigatons of CO2 are dumped into the atmosphere, why is anyone surprised that the biosphere alters? If warming, whatever the cause, can result in the sudden release of methane equal to 1,000 gigatons of CO2, why would this have no effect?

Some readers assure me that global warming is the result of US geoengineering for war or against humanity; others say it results from the particles released in chem trails.

Some readers are exasperated with global warming denial:

“I fish 150 days a year minimum for decades now. Being an outdoorsman I notice the environment as do all of my hunting and fishing friends in upstate NY and MA. Not one of them denies global warming anymore, though it took more time for most of them to come around. But if you spend time outdoors eventually it washes over you – something ain’t right! In the late ’90s in western NY in November I stood in a Great Lakes Tributary in neoprene waders and the temperature hit 85 f. This killed the fishing because the snowmelt lowered the water temperature to the point the fish became lethargic while I broiled and had to run for the parking lot to change into my jeans and drink some water. I had already been noticing that winters came later and lasted for a shorter duration while summers were definitely hotter. The heatwaves threatened inland fisheries in the Catskills that never had problems before with heat induced fish kills. I started researching global warming and it didn’t take too much to convince me that what I had been experiencing was at the very least a substantial break from what I had grown up with and heading one direction – toward warming. There is so much natural evidence for observant outdoorsmen – the range of former primarily southern birds like Cardinals and Red-Bellied Woodpeckers that never wintered here are now established year-round in Northern climes. Range expansion due to global warming goes for plants and insects as well. I am so very tired of being told to ignore my lying eyes, to ignore common laws of physics and common sense, to accept ever more implausible explanations for obvious causes of events. This is truly the age of deception sponsored by the forces that constitute US corporate rule.”

Funny, isn’t it, that everyday experience corresponds with global warming.

ORDER IT NOW

Some readers do not understand that the measured rising temperatures are not products of a global warming model, but are actual measurements. The models can be as wrong as you like, and they have underpredicted the melting of the polar ice caps, but the actual measurements show warming. Are the Rothchilds paying or ordering all the measuring stations to report higher temperatures?

What is the point of telling me that you disagree with climate scientists? What does that mean? Are you more knowledgeable than climate scientists?

What is most amazing is those few who believe carbon industry climate science, but not other climate scientists. It is certainly the case that there is peer pressure in every discipline to stay within the paradigm of the profession. In economics, for example, just ask me or Michael Hudson about closed neoliberal minds. My Oxford professor’s theory of chemical absorption was suppressed for 4 decades because it did not fit within the existing paradigm. There is no doubt that the climate scientists could be wrong that CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. But their explanation is the best that we have and is the only explanation that we can do anything about. So, should we just ignore what we do know, or think we know, on the basis of faith that God or nature will turn it around? The consequence of the information being correct, yet doing nothing is apocalyptic.

Keep in mind, also, that the same peer pressure that exists in science and academic disciplines also exists among carbon industry-financed climate science. How many scientists warning about global warming do you know who are financed by the Koch brothers?

It is also amazing that a few readers are so desperate to convert me to carbon industry propaganda. I simply reported on a report in a scientific journal. Why do I need to be shielded from reporting on a scientific report?

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: Global Warming 
Hide 40 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Great article. The point about global warming being observed in real-time measurements is, sadly, lost on too many folks who just rant about “the models.”

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  2. Sparkon says:

    You quoted this guy:

    There is so much natural evidence for observant outdoorsmen – the range of former primarily southern birds like Cardinals and Red-Bellied Woodpeckers that never wintered here are now established year-round in Northern climes.

    The well-loved, bright-red cardinal (male) is a year-round resident in much of the Eastern & Midwestern U.S. including western N.Y. state, as a glance at the bird’s range map will quickly and clearly affirm.

    It is not without reason that the bird’s official name is Northern cardinal. So much for the “observant outdoorsmen” who think it is (exclusively) a southern bird.

    In any event, there is no argument that there has been warming since the Little Ice Age, and this has been beneficial for humans, not least of all for the innocent old crones who were being burned alive as witches.

    Warmer climates are also beneficial for birds and other living things who will naturally expand their range into any suitable territory as conditions improve. Warmer climate means expanded crop ranges, and longer growing seasons.

    What’s not to like?

    Finally, anyone seeing Northern cardinals nesting or hanging around should not panic. Get a field guide, binoculars, and learn something, while you count your blessings.

  3. Paul,

    I’ll repeat my message from your previous article.

    The question here isn’t who’s right; it’s who is most persuasive. You are not being persuasive. Scott Adams does a very good job of laying out what you need to be persuasive, which is far more important that being right.

    Answer his questions, and you’ll persuade many people, including myself who is very much on the fence. Ignore them, and you won’t. Here’s my past comment:

    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

  4. Anonymous [AKA "Lysenko"] says:

    Roberts is in over his head here.

    If he were serious, he would list the prominent skeptics and address their arguments.

    Lindzen, Watts, Happer, Singer, Easterbrook, Spencer, Christy, Michaels, Peiser, Curry, etc

  5. Do you think no one noticed that you utterly ignored perfectly reasonable criticisms of the AGW dogma provided by those responding to your previous post.

    The naive observations of temporary fluctuations in weather in restricted regions are hardly conclusive evidence of anything. In the half century I’ve been paying attention to New England weather we’ve had unusually warm years and unusually cold years. There’s not enough consistency to suggest a trend. My father and grandfather noticed the same thing in their time

    The ultimate test of a scientific theory is its ability to predict and explain. The predictions of the AGW models from twenty years ago for what should be happening now — aside from those whose vagueness would put an astrologer to shame — have proven false. Current sea levels are nowhere near what the AGW models (credo(?), dogma(?) predicted back then. Also average global temperatures over the past thirty years have shown essentially no statistically verifiable trend (drawing trend lines through time series data is a crude, unsophisticated, incorrect and misleading technique). They certainly have not risen to the degree the AGW clique predicted back twenty years ago. Nor have temperature trends correlated at all with changing CO2 levels over that twenty year period.

    Your argumentum ad auctoritatem is both stale and contradicted by a comparison of past AGW predictions with current reality, Mr.Roberts. But I don’t really care. I lived through years of John Ehrlich’s bloviations. I can deal with yours and the AGW crowd’s just as well.

  6. A data-free article.

    What I did was run a bunch of regressions using polar ice core data and solar output, along with a number of greenhouse gasses.

    What I discovered was that solar output was by far the largest component of variation in temperature and that indeed greenhouse gases mattered, but it was a combination of them in the aggregate, not CO2 alone.

    Methane, CO2, Nitrous Oxide, water vapor, Ozone, CFC’s – these were so co-linear as to cause a problem we call multicollinearity. I was hoping to derive individual effects, ie whether methane or CO2 had a greater impact or whatever – but it was statistically impossible to see.

    There are feedback loops pointing to what we call simultaneous equations analysis, and in seeing that I wrote up a draft. I sent the working paper off to a professor at Harvard who initially seemed very enthusiastic until the first results described above and I never heard from him again. My area is statistics, not atmospheric science so I wanted a colleague in that area, and having nobody I went on to other research then retired.

    Nevertheless it was such a great example of using phony correlations like graphs of CO2 and temperature data alone to infer a larger-than-fact causality that I used it in my statistics classes for years. After you enter the solar data, the effect of CO2 nearly vanishes.

    That isn’t to say it does not matter. But that the effect is hugely overstated from the bias caused by omission of a relevant variable. What matters more than anything is solar output and if you tinker with the sample period to match the solar output just right, while leaving it out, you can get some incredible but spurious apparent impacts from CO2.

    The sun, Mr. Roberts. That’s what.

    And by the way – I chaired my department for many years and during that time I received all the grant announcements from various think-tanks and government agencies announcing what they would fund. I passed them on to my professors, so that they could apply for grants to write the papers those organizations wanted to see. There isn’t any question that funding corrupts science.

  7. Louis says:

    Mr. Roberts during the last ice age the ice covered much of what is now the United States. How did the ice melt so long before cars, factories, deforestation, etc? How did they farm in Greenland when first settled, but now its too cold to farm? What is your opinion of ice increasing in Antarctica? What is your opinion of the rise of Nordic countries out of the sea? Read: New Land, but also costs, as Nordic Nations rise from sea by Alister Doyle Nov. 27th 2012 Reuters. Why do Liberals think we will be flooded if this is occurring in the Nordic countries? The Nazis thought eugenics was “scientific” too. Why do Liberals believe Global Warming “science”, but not Eugenics “science”? John Basil Utley wrote in the American Conservative February 10th 2017: Moscow Sees Its Coldest Christmas in 120 Years. Do you have an opinion as to why this happened?

    Perhaps there is a hidden political reason for pushing Global Warming, but I remain a skeptic on this issue.

  8. There’s lot’s of censoring going on by this Roberts fool. I wish I’d saved my comment explaining that there are no working models of the entire Earth’s climate. I saw 2 more disappear besides mine. If you don’t like disagreement, Roberts, why don’t you shut down the comment section completely for your stuff? It’s what they all do, Yahoo, NYT, etc. when people get wise to the stupidity.

  9. MB says: • Website

    Is climate change real?
    Well, yeah, but the $64 question is it human caused?
    And anybody that graduated from 4th grade ought to be able to tell you that at one time the Vikings had settled and farmed Greenland, but eventually ahem, the pollution from their snowmobiles and 4 wheelers caused “climate change”. Then the Eskimos moved in and there went the neighborhood. The ice followed and Puffington Host lost it. The evil white man, if not human cancer of white people began destroying the earth. Lets have more federally subsidized solar and wind plants so CO2 which is a plant food, will not continue to contaminate the en-vir-o-munt.
    Right.

    (As an aside, remember the mercury thermometer scare?
    But now incandescent lightbulbs need to be replaced by mercury ones.
    Go figure.)

    Why don’t they just come out and say they hate people and that they want to repristinate things to the point that while we bring back the wolves, we reduce, if not eliminate the human population altogether.

    WADR this is known as shark jumping PCR. Yes, climate change is real. But that it is necessarily caused by humans is quite a different animal/non sequitur. Drink the koolaid at your own peril and that of your reputation.

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  10. @Backwoods Bob

    The sun, Mr. Roberts. That’s what.

    Of course. Ensolation. Where does anyone think atmospheric and oceanic heat comes from? There are secondary foci such as methane, CO2, nitrous oxide, water vapor, ozone, etc., but they don’t MAKE heat.

    Several years ago, I read research (since forgotten as to source) describing how the world ocean sinks, or betimes releases, CO2 in quantities so enormous as to dwarf the oft-quoted 0.5% of global atmospheric CO2 that is regarded as anthropogenic. Further, those amounts vary regularly by 6% or more annually, in accordance with factors not well understood. It was immediately clear that “manmade” CO2 is so trivial in volume as to be statistically irrelevant to climate change.

  11. The Arctic polar ice cap appears to be hitting lower annual maxima in recent years. The Antarctic polar ice cap has recently hit a new historical maximum. The Earth orbits the Sun in a less than perfect ellipse that varies its distance from the Sun from time to time. It is far more likely that the observed “warming” is nothing more than the result of irregular distances from the Sun than from man-generated carbon dioxide which, by the way, is far lower now than it was in ages before humanity attained the know-how to release carbon by-products into the atmosphere.

    Climate change is fact, but the inferences drawn as to its causes and whether or not remedies are appropriate are pure conjecture.

    BTW, what does Dr. Roberts have against plants?

    • Replies: @Erebus
  12. The questions are:

    1. Does warming constitute an emergency?

    2. Can we do anything about it with current technology?

    No and No.

    The measurements are clearly running below the models. That means the system is positively damped (sensitivity is below 1.4 C) and the “runaway greenhouse” is bunk. We will eventually develop bio fuels at a reasonable cost and the “problem” will be solved – probably well after war has cut back the population anyway.

    Meanwhile the Chinese, the Indians, and all in between are burning fossil fuels at an ever growing rate and our consumption is becoming irrelevant.

    The tax is a wealth transfer scheme by blank slater statists who imagine that they are going to “save” the world. What they would actually accomplish is inflicting greater stress on a system already headed for disaster.

    I’d rather take my chances on nature, cruel as it is.

  13. Erebus says:
    @The Alarmist

    The Antarctic polar ice cap has recently hit a new historical maximum.

    The author of an article I read recently (memory fails at the moment) compared the ice mapping done at the turn of the 20th century by the Antarctic explorers to today’s ice cap. Guess what! The ice cap hasn’t changed in any significant way, and has even apparently increased.

    There are piles of hippopotamus bones on Siberian islands. Bones, not fossils. They didn’t swim there on their summer vacations. Albertosaurus got to be a pretty big animal (~2 metric tons), for a (semi?) cold-blooded creature living through Alberta winters. Not. And so on…

    My view of Global Warming is that temperatures have demonstrably been going up and down since well before the dawn of time, and we shouldn’t be surprised when they do one or the other. In fact, we should be delighted that they’re going up. If you think planetary warming is bad, you haven’t given enough consideration to an ice-age.

  14. the raven says:

    Some readers do not understand that the measured rising temperatures are not products of a global warming model, but are actual measurements. The models can be as wrong as you like, and they have underpredicted the melting of the polar ice caps, but the actual measurements show warming. Are the Rothchilds paying or ordering all the measuring stations to report higher temperatures?

    The measurements themselves are fake. Warmists have demonstrably altered past measurements to show a warming trend — see link below. No doubt they have some meretricious reason for doing so, but your believe that these are simple measurements is false. (This is before even getting into the cover-up of the medieval warm period.)

    http://notrickszone.com/2016/07/25/software-expert-exposes-potential-nasa-climate-data-fraud-trend-completely-fake-and-manipulated/

  15. woodNfish says:
    @Tsar Nicholas

    AGW is a fraud and the ice caps are not melting. What is melting, and then comes back every Winter is sea ice. There is NO empirical evidence for global warming, but plenty for AGW fraud.

    • Replies: @Tsar Nicholas
  16. woodNfish says:
    @MB

    The climate is not changing, but the weather does change constantly. We still have all 4 seasons and right now it is Spring in the Northern Hemisphere and Autumn in the Southern Hemisphere. Those seasons will be followed by the usual Summer and Winter and life will go on. All the blather abut the climate changing is junk science, fraud and total BS.

  17. Mark Green says: • Website

    Wow. What a weak, smug and unscientific article. And coming from PC Roberts, no less. Disappointing.

    Fact: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a hypothesis. And the part about a mild uptick in average temperatures being ‘catastrophic’ to humans is also a hypothesis.

    In fact, as far as humans are concerned, slightly warmer temps will probably be beneficial. Indeed, the slight rise in atmospheric CO2 (to 400 ppm) is already benefiting plant growth around the world. This means more food. And animals? There’s no evidence that they have been affected by any tiny rise in average global temperature (if there even is one).

    Many land animals however are in big trouble. They are being rapidly wiped out. This is not due to AGW, but to human-caused habitat destruction, human hunting, human-caused pollution and other human activities; but not AGW. This real crisis involving animals (and some plants) is entirely unrelated to AGW.

    As for Mr. Roberts, he apparently knows little about the history of our planet’s climate. If he did, he would know that–for complex reasons that are not entirely understood–planet Earth is presently basking in a mild ‘inter-glacial period’ which began about 14,000 years ago. Before that, much of the planet was icy and somewhat inhospitable.

    Indeed, over the past 1,000,000 years, much of the planet Earth has been locked in dry and icy state. These are called ‘glacial periods’. They’ve kind of been the norm. Fortunately for humans and most plants and animals, every 100,000 years or so, there’s a thawing out. These brief, warm intervals are called ‘inter-glacial periods’. And they only last about 15,000 years or so. So get ready for some seriously cooler weather, though it’s probably several centuries away.

    Below is a brilliant lecture on the dubiousness of the AGW hypothesis by a environmental scientist and the co-founder of Greenpeace. I rate this lecture a ‘Must Watch’ video if you’re interested in this subject:

  18. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Looks like the disinformation brigade is out in full force to dispute what Roberts is saying. It’s either head-in-the-sand denial or some are being paid by the Heartland Institute. When we literally are frying the last argument will be, “Well, jeez, these things happen from time to time — let’s not forget the Permian die-off.”

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  19. @Anon

    Nobody’s gonna be literally frying, Chicken Little. Nobody’s even gonna be figuratively frying, for cryin’ out loud. Even the purported-working “mathematical models of all of the thermodynamic/heat-transfer processes of all layers of the atmosphere, the oceans, cloud formation, radiative properties of all land cover of the world based on our arbitrary intitial conditions”* don’t show any changes in temperatures that would start a man frying, and they don’t even really work.

    I think there have been some good comments here, Anon. I don’t know if you are the same “anon” as the one who writes great comments under iSteve (really, could y’all pick some handles that are more memorable – does the handle “anon” make you more anonymous, ya figure?). I have told the iSteve “anon” that he should write his own blog. I hope you are not the same one.

    I wouldn’t expect that the commenters here are paid off by some institute. I know I haven’t seen my check yet. If Mr. Roberts here has been writing on behalf of any industry, it’d be hard to believe, as he usually is against all of the status quo (of these later years of this nation), and I agree with him. This post, however, could only have been written by someone paid off by Big Stupidity, or for free.

    * Oh, except we don’t publish the true causes and processes that regularly bring on the ice ages, cause we don’t know them – but, the models will be OK without that, right?

  20. While we’re busy calling others ignorant of science, it would behoove us to not look like a PC ignoramus ourselves.

    H2O is water, not hydrogen – a liquid and not a gas. CO2 is carbon dioxide – a gas, not a solid. It is plant food, not pollution. It is not “carbon”.

    When we see someone not even calling the state of matter correctly,and not even getting the molecule right – they have no credibility. They’re either that ignorant or a deceptive con-man. It is a big red flag to me when a writer repeatedly says “carbon, carbon, carbon”.

    We are a carbon-based life form. You can just as well call humans carbon. A mother pollutes by producing her carbon baby.

    The purpose of calling it carbon is to create the illusion of black, sooty pollution and play on people’s emotions. Guilt-tripping. Shaming. Along with calling people stupid when the person doing the finger-pointing doesn’t even know the difference between a solid and a gas or an atom and a complex molecule with entirely different chemical properties.

    If your science is sound, you don’t need all this deceptive, emotional garbage.

    We use a CO2 generator to produce our plant starts while there is still snow outside. The difference in growth is amazing. We tried three types of generators and the one we settled on was just running the exhaust from our propane water heater into the plant room.

    So when the otherwise lucid writer Mr. Roberts talks about deforestation at the same time he speaks of dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, he has it backwards. If you want forestation, then pump out CO2.

  21. @ sparky-
    you maroon, gee, WHY did you glide right past the part where he mentioned SPECIFICALLY “over-wintering’ ? ? ?
    THAT is the rub of the nub, NOT that there are ‘southern’ cardinals there, but that they are OVER-WINTERING, numbnuts… that is a HUGE difference…

    and -just to annoy sparky- i will pipe up with my personal anecdotes from la florida:
    1. record temps nearly EVERY year, NOT 100 year events, not 1000 year events, but YEARLY events…
    2. NOWHERE near the diversity of birds at my bird feeders and birdbath that i have enjoyed seeing over the last 30+ years on this piece of property…
    3. golden orb weavers and crab spiders practically GONE the last 3-4 years, when we would normally be clogged with many levels of webs/spiders… in fact, up until a couple years ago, i would have to carry a ‘spider stick’ when walking the dogs through the woods, because they would rebuild the webs betw the time i walked them in the morning, and the afternoon… been years since i had to carry around a spider stick…
    4. landscape plants that would normally die back in the winter, then re-grow in the spring, have NOT died back the last 2-3 years… NOT NORMAL, i don’t care how fucking smart you think you are, sparky…
    5. along the lines of what mr roberts says, A. i would trust scientists at large over corporate lapdog scientists any day of the week and twice on sundays; B. show me the money: climate change scientists are NOT the ones getting lavish grants, it is the pro-carbon scientists in the employ of Big Energy who do… guess who i ‘trust’ more ? ? ?

  22. KenH says:

    I’m surprised at PCR’s true believer like zeal and passion in this article.

    The theory of global warming is just a theory and I personally think it’s a scam. It’s just designed to enrich busybodies and special interests and scare the hoi polloi to accept more big government initiatives.

    I’ve read where the earth is overdue for the start of another glacial period. The earth has always gone through warming and cooling periods. Antarctica was a tropical region at one point (around 35 million years ago), so maybe the North Pole is slowly transforming into one and it has little to do with carbon emissions.

  23. @art guerrilla

    Truth, you must be retired now, with all your commenting all over the blogosphere. It’d be better for you to do some learning first, BEFORE the running of your mouth. I don’t think a warm spring here and there constitutes a reason for us to freak out. We had an awful cold winter the previous 2 winters where I live.

    Learn to stop and smell the flowers, sport, or is that not a black thang?

  24. Sparkon says:
    @art guerrilla

    You wrote:

    you maroon, gee, WHY did you glide right past the part where he mentioned SPECIFICALLY “over-wintering’ ? ? ?
    THAT is the rub of the nub, NOT that there are ‘southern’ cardinals there, but that they are OVER-WINTERING, numbnuts… that is a HUGE difference…

    I wrote:

    The well-loved, bright-red cardinal (male) is a year-round resident in much of the Eastern & Midwestern U.S. including western N.Y. state, as a glance at the bird’s range map will quickly and clearly affirm.

    “Year-round resident” means that they overwinter. Is that too difficult for you to understand? Again, have a look at the range map I provided. “Year-round resident” means cardinals are there for all four seasons, including winter.

    There is nothing new, novel, or worthy of panic about Northern cardinals overwintering in Eastern or Midwestern woodlands, where I recall hearing their cheery, ringing whistles in the depth of winter from my youth in the 1950s.

    It has taken advantage of moderate temperatures, human habitation, and provisioning at bird feeders to expand its range northward since the early 1800s and has been introduced to California, Hawaii, and Bermuda. A year-round resident, the cardinal is a common visitor to bird feeders in winter, and it has been chosen as state bird in 7 U.S. states.

    Northern cardinal

    As it has been getting warmer since the Little Ice Age, we should expect that species will be expanding their ranges northward into newly hospitable environments.

    When you relax the caps key, you could follow this link, and see that the Northern cardinal is listed as one of Top Ten Birds That Winter in Canada.

    http://www.earthrangers.com/wildwire/top-10/top-ten-birds-that-stay-in-canada-in-the-winter/

  25. @woodNfish

    @woodNfish

    You are seriously misinformed.

    Arctic sea ice volume is one quarter of its 1979 value. It failed to regrow during the long Arctic winter this year. The sea ice plays a vital role in regulating planetary temperatures.

    The Greenland ice sheet is rapidly retreating and the rate of retreat has been accelerating. Even the most simple-minded of persons can find photographs of this phenomenon on the internet.

    Why are North West Passage cruises at many thousands of dollars apiece now in vogue if there has not been a substantial decline of the ice?

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  26. Stealth says:
    @art guerrilla

    I don’t know how anyone can deny global warming in 2017, but a whole lot of folks do. At this point, it’s just plain to see. My fortieth birthday is right around two corners, and I have observed the changes myself. I live in the deep south, and I can remember at least two occasions when I was a child when nightly temperatures plunged to zero degrees for several days in a row. Snow covered the ground at least once a year.

    The former is now inconceivable and the latter will also probably never happen again. Yet, I get the feeling that if I were to ask a large sample of conservative Republicans around here, most of them would aver that global warming is nothing more than a scam.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  27. @Stealth


    Snow covered the ground at least once a year.

    The former is now inconceivable and the latter will also probably never happen again.

    What a load of bull. S. Carolina (even in the low country) got 8 in. of snow TWICE during the winter about 3 years back.

    For a 38 year-old man, you have the memory of a 75 year-old. The South had a warm winter in 16-17, no doubt ( even though we did get a light snow dusting twice), but don’t go imagining you understand something as complex as the whole world climate (nobody’s got a working model of it – we don’t have a handle on all the processes involved).

    One warm winter and you all come out of the woodwork again … it’s just sad to see Paul Craig Roberts, whom I used to respect, write about something of which he knows zilch.

  28. Yeah, Citizen,

    I have reached out to Roberts via the contact form on his website in response to this piece and his previous piece and pointed out to him Scott Adams on persuasion and the climate issue (Scott’s questioning of modelling), and also pointed to the work in this area done on the Flavius Maximus blog, but he doesn’t respond.

    And I’ve never seen him respond to any comments on his articles that appear on the Unz Review.

    I don’t know if I can post a chart in comments here, but this article I just read came up with a chart of CO2 in PPM and temperature over the past 800 million years and it is illustrative of how stupid the entire climate change mantra is. [I can’t post the jpg so just take my word for it, ok?]

    There are really three aspects of this nonsense:

    1. Is climate change happening? This question is by no means settled, but you would not know this from the climate change hysterics.

    2. Is it human-caused? Let me ask this: who cares? As the inventor of the Gaia concept, Dr. Lovelock, has stated, it doesn’t matter anyway, it’s currently unstoppable anyway (if it’s happening). I mean the climate mantra lunatics seem to believe: if we caused it, we can stop it. But neither side of that logic is necessarily true.

    And the biggie, 3. What does it mean for life on earth, or more likely, human life on earth? In other words, are the models correct? But, how could they be? As Scott Adams points out, modelling is never ever correct. Flavious Maximus points out the same thing.

    Modelling done by climate change fanatics posits that there will be huge numbers of coal plants built over the course of the century, that population will continue to double and triple. But already, coal plant construction is going down. And projections of population growth are iffy to delusional. These are only 2 of the many problems with the projections based on modelling of the climate change nutbags.

    PCR going along with these defective models is not compelling. It just makes Roberts seem cranky and I’m just going to say it, stupid.

    His normal writing style is: how could anyone believe in the (pick your issue here, be it 9/11, Russia is the enemy, etc., etc.). This works for most of the subjects of his writings, because there is genuine reason to not believe in those things that Roberts attacks in his writings. They are also mostly if not always on the other side of the established beliefs of mainstream news.

    So why, on this issue alone, is Roberts doing his how would anyone believe schtick with an article that is so mainstream and establishment?

    It doesn’t make sense, Paul. And you are being ridiculous. You should be questioning the establishement mantra, not attacking those who question it.

  29. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    [quote]In other words, are the models correct? But, how could they be? As Scott Adams points out, modelling is never ever correct. Flavious Maximus points out the same thing.[/quote]

    Ridiculous argument — that a model has to be absolutely correct to the nth decimal point or otherwise it’s “wrong.” A model gives an approximate handle on the future (if it’s any good) — it’s useful to that extent. If I toss a coin a hundred times and get seventy heads and then propose a model that predicts 70% heads in the future, then I’ll probably be more correct than someone who forecasts 50% heads and argues that my model is “just a theory.” And then feels vindicated when the next hundred tosses produce only 68 heads.

  30. woodNfish says:
    @Tsar Nicholas

    You are the one who is misinformed, or should I say fooled?

  31. @Anon

    I tried to post a link to my blog anon (I’ll do it separately to see if that’s why I got censored yesterday) where I explain mathematical models as an engineer – it is about 5-6 posts, so I can’t fit it all here.

    We’re not talking about decimal places (I assume you mean out of 100 otherwise what does that mean? +/- .005 out of .015 is significant, .1 out of 100 is indeed not important in most areas). We’re talking about garbage in = garbage out. I just said up above that there are physical processes that are not really known well enough to model with equations with any accuracy that are just jammed into (and must be part of) any model of the whole world’s climate. It is difficult enough to make a working model of anything, even when all of the piece-parts (so to speak) are very accurate. There is usually some more physics missing that is never known ahead of time, which explains why fudge factors are used in engineering. The difference is, we us them when just a small part of actual testing data or observation doesn’t match the model.

    We don’t know exactly how el nino and la nino start – the climate guys do have a good idea, and I am not knocking their work – but no one can predict the next one. I ask you, anon, is the el nino/la nina process an INPUT TO or an OUTPUT OF any math. model? Either way, you can’t leave that out, yet we don’t know enough. Don’t get me started again about the ice ages, which would OVERWHELM any effects possible from some minor process of radiative heat transfer changes due to a minor gas in the atmosphere (oh, and don’t worry about the H2o, it has a greenhouse effect too, but we don’t want to talk about it, cause every combustion process makes water too – then, if you try to pull another one “water is a pollutant, stop water emissions!“, the layman will quickly write you off as the kooks you are.)

    That 2nd paragraph about the percentage business you give is total crap anyway. Who is gonna’ make a decision to change his whole life based on a future event being 70% likely vs. 50% likely?

  32. @Anon

    This is the topic key here. Check out the 5 posts (with a few intermissions) about the modelling aspect. The political aspect is in other posts in sequence.

  33. @woodNfish

    It seems you can’t read graphs – yours shows a clear decline.

    But my post specifically referred to volume, which takes account of sea ice thickness, and you didn’t addtress that.

    Nor did you address my point about ships now sailing through the Arctic when they were unable to do so previously.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  34. Sparkon says:
    @Tsar Nicholas

    Hey Tsar!

    Most of us don’t dispute that there has been climate change and global warming since the Little Ice Age ended about 150 years ago, and also since the last glacial period ended some 12,000 years ago.

    When it gets warmer, ice melts, and/or sublimates.

    Think of it: ice sheets a mile thick over Chicago and other parts of the Midwest during the Wisconsinan glacial episode, and also during the earlier Illininoian glacial episode.

    Since you like ice, those should be pleasant thoughts, no?

    Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but since you would appear to be an ice aficionado of sorts, perhaps you are the person in possession of that critical bit of data we all would like to know, and this is, of course, what exactly would be or actually is the ideal, or perfect amount of Arctic sea ice?

    I’m very hopeful you may be persuaded to share with us the golden standard for Arctic sea ice volume.

  35. Oh, I want to apologize for my comment #8 here. I just now saw that there was a previous article, and that’s where my comment that I’d thought had been censored appeared. What happened was, Mr. Roberts posted this (2nd of a series of 2 dumb articles) right after I’d gotten back to a place to read some more.

    Sincere apologies to Mr. Unz or whoever does the moderating. I will correct my blog post on this matter.

    I hope you can get back to pointing out the excesses and unconstitutional actions of our US Feral Government, PC Roberts, and quit writing about things that you have no idea about.

    (Backwoods Bob, I understand the point of your comment #20 even more from reading PCR’s previous claptrap – yeah, I don’t think the guy understands a lick of chemistry. Is he against graphite lube for bicycles, pencil leads and all pure carbon, or life itself, made of carbon compounds? He also probably doesn’t know the difference between Carbon Dioxide and Carobon Monoxide, and I really think the lyin’ press counts a little bit on this on behalf of the public too – “oh yeah, that nasty stuff that can kill you in the garage … cut emissions now!”)

  36. @Anon

    Anon?

    Ridiculous argument — that a model has to be absolutely correct to the nth decimal point or otherwise it’s “wrong.” A model gives an approximate handle on the future (if it’s any good) — it’s useful to that extent.

    No, it’s not a ridiculous argument. Why? Because Scott Adams doesn’t say the modelling is accurate to any degree. Ever. If you had taken a moment to read a couple of his columns on climate change modelling you would know this. Instead you jump to the false conclusion that I am saying that modelling is partly accurate to some degree. No. Modelling is not accurate and is never accurate.

    And if you had taken a couple of moments more to review any of the many articles written on the modelling written by Flavius Maximus, you would see more detailed reasons on why the modelling is not at all accurate to any degree. Flavius points out that the projections that are publicized by the journalists that you and PCR seem to only be reading are the absolutely worst possible possibilities the worst possible projections of the modelling that has been done.

    By absolute worst possible, Flavius points to the projection that coal buring facitlities will continue to be built at the rate they were being built a decade ago, something that has already proved to be false as these projects are in decline. He also points to the problems with population growth projections while noting that birth rates drop and are dropping as nations gain more economic equality and prosperity, thus putting the lie to the modelling.

    This is the serious, serious flaw with the modelling used by the climate change hysterics.

    You can stop with the hysterical straw man fallacies and start by thinking before you write.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  37. Sparkon says:
    @restless94110

    This is generally a good comment, except for the bit about coal plants.

    the projection that coal buring facitlities will continue to be built at the rate they were being built a decade ago

    If you concede the bogus point about coal plants, and CO₂ being responsible for global warming and climate change, you are playing right into the alarmist’s hands.

    There is no proof that burning coal, or (emitting) CO₂ plays any role in climate change or global warming.

    • Replies: @restless94110
  38. @Sparkon

    I conceded nothing.

    My comments were on the projections being ridiculously exaggerated. The projections are based in part on the projected coal buring plants that might be built as extrapolated throughout the century.

    That projection has already been proven to be clearly off the mark as coal burning plant building is declining.

    This has nothing to do with the 2 other problems with climate change, which I have detailed in the previous comment, see above, which are:

    1. is climate change happening at all? and
    2. is it human-caused?

    The issue of CO2 would be in one of those 2. I have spent little time on the CO2 issue, except to come to the conclusion that:

    I hope those that say that a lot of CO2 will provoke rampant plant growth on the planet are correct, because it is clear that CO2 levels are going up.

    However, on that issue, a few days ago I saw a graphic on the levels of CO2 (and also the average temperatures) over the last 800 million years. If this graphic is correct the CO2 level was once at 7000 ppm. It is near to 400 ppm now.

    I would like to see more definitive proof on this CO2 angle.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  39. @restless94110

    I hope those that say that a lot of CO2 will provoke rampant plant growth on the planet are correct…

    There’s no need for hope; this part is actual science (biology in particular), Restless. Plants “breath” Carbon Dioxide and “exhale” Oxygen. OK, OK, they don’t have lungs, but that chemical/biological process has been known by biologists and anyone involved in growing ANYTHING for more than 100 years.

    Plants and animals are symbiotic. We exhale the C02, and plants inhale it like a Dead-Head inhales a joint at his first show of the summer. Plants exhaust O2 and WE LOVE IT. That’s why plants and animals get along so well in the world vs. say, left-wingers and sane people. I’ve never had a problem with plants, except for cooked cabbage and spinach. They put up with me, even when I pee in the camellia bushes. Even then, it never comes to blows.

    There’s no doubt that if C02 levels are higher, plant growth will increase, with other factors remaining the same, which who knows – we can’t model the Earth’s freaking entire climate at this point! That conveniently brings me back to my point from last week.

  40. Sparkon says:

    Thanks for your comment, but even as you deny conceding the point, you do it again.

    … coal burning plant building is declining.

    This has nothing to do with the 2 other problems with climate change
    1. is climate change happening at all? and
    2. is it human-caused?

    I’m not entirely sure of what you are trying to say here, but you seem to think that coal-fired power plants are one of the “problems with climate change,” or are also somehow connected with climate change, but first things first:

    It is foolish to argue that there is no climate change.

    As Pynchon put it in Gravity’s Rainbow:

    If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.

    Of course climate changes. It is an entirely natural process. Don’t fall into the trap of doubting it, disputing it, or arguing about it.

    Climate has changed over the long term, and it probably always will on Earth, where our axis of rotation is tilted at 23.5 degrees to the plane of our orbit around the Sun, but wobbles slightly, along with various other changing geometrical relationships encapsulated in the theory of Milankovitch Cycles,…

    Milutin Milanković. In the 1920s, he theorized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth’s orbit resulted in cyclical variation in the solar radiation (insolation) reaching the Earth, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced climatic patterns on Earth.

    Whether or not you subscribe to this theory, which cannot account for more abrupt climate change, e.g. Younger Dryas, climate change is clearly recorded in the geological record, and it is also recorded in the historical era: The Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, and the current, so-called Modern Warm Period.

    These earlier warm periods have come and gone, interrupted by periods of global cooling, when civilizations crashed. The most recent period of significant global cooling, known as the Little Ice Age, chased the Vikings from Greenland, stopped wine production in England, and motivated Pope Innocent VIII to issue his papal bull of 1484, which edict blamed witches, and encouraged their punishment.

    If we go back further in time, vast ice sheets a mile or more thick in some places covered large expanses in N. America, for example, in the most recent Wisconsinan glacial period ending about 12,000 years ago, and in the more remote Illinoian glacial period, where the ice sheets reached their southernmost advance in N. America near the modern Illinois city of Carbondale.

    Carbon dale; ironic, eh? The point is, there should be no question, or argument about climate change. It is a fact.

    Nor should there be any argument that drastic climate change, global warming and global cooling have occurred many times in Earth’s history without any possible involvement of human beings. Similarly, atmospheric levels of CO₂ have been much higher in the past, as you note, without any evidence of runaway global warming.

    You also display not much familiarity with the various proxies, such as the Greenland ice core data which record temperatures rising first, and CO₂ levels rising several hundred years later. Rising atmospheric CO₂ is an effect of rising global temperatures, and not its cause.

    And yes, the diabolical molecule CO₂–carbon dioxide–gives your soda or beer its carbonation, that sharp tickle on tongue and throat that adds sparkle to your favorite beverage, but which goes flat as your can of beer warms up, and loses its carbonation.

    The oceans are a vast reservoir of CO₂. Just like your beer or soda, the oceans outgas CO₂ as they warm.

    What causes the Earth and its oceans to warm? Nobody knows. But evidence of global warming and global cooling is irrefutable, even if its cause remains obscure.

    Some greenhouse operators do elevate CO₂ levels in their enclosures, most simply by burning propane, to 1200 ppm or thereabouts, because many plants not only require less water at that level, but also grow bigger.

    To sum up: Climate change is a ongoing natural process on Earth, which experiences periods of global warming, followed by global cooling, but the underlying cause of climate change remains obscure. Increased atmospheric CO₂ is an effect of global warming and not its cause, and is likely to be beneficial, in any event. Finally, high levels of CO₂ recorded in Earth’s past have not caused runaway global warming.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS