A Preferential Option for Climate Catastrophe?

By William M Briggs Published on June 5, 2017

This article is in answer to Ross Douthat’s, a.k.a. Lt Keefer’s, column “Neither Hot Nor Cold on Climate” in which he impugned as “anti-intellectual” those who are reflexively against the journalist-politician-activist-bien pensant (but unfortunately not scientist) “Consensus” that the world is doomed because of global warming.

Douthat, a “lukewarmer,” confesses an increasing fear about global warming (or what he mistakenly calls  “climate change,” a curious error to make while lecturing on the subject. The climate is and has and will always change.)

Second, he says that “in actual right-wing politics no serious assessment of the science and the risks is taking place to begin with. Instead there’s just a mix of business-class and blue-collar self-interest and a trollish, ‘If liberals are for it, we’re against it’ anti-intellectualism. So while lukewarmers may fancy ourselves serious interlocutors for liberals, we’re actually just running interference on behalf of know-nothing and do-nothingism, attacking flawed policies on behalf of a Republican Party that will never, ever advance any policies of its own.”

But it’s false that there are no serious assessments of climate science from non-progressives. And far from being anti-intellectual, doing nothing is a reasonable response when the threat is small.

A Climate Warning

To prove both of these contentions, let me tell you a story. Couple years back in a well-regarded, peer-reviewed journal1 some colleagues and I argued that a doubling of pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide would result in about one degree Celsius of temperature increase (about 2 degrees F).

We also estimated that “combustion of all recoverable fossil fuels” would cause less than 2.2 degrees Celsius warming (about 4 degrees F).

The first estimate is about half of what the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change guessed, and our second estimate is well under their worst-case predictions.

It should be, but was not and probably still is not, obvious that our statements are premised on admitting that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will cause measurable warming. This is, or was, the “lukewarmer” position.

I say it wasn’t obvious because when we published the paper, among environmental activists there arose a surge of apoplexy that would not be achieved until the election of Donald Trump. We were called “deniers.” Members of Congress snapped into action. We were vilified in the press. We were accused of taking thirty pieces of silver — in spite of our plenteous, insistent public statements that we did the work on our own time, and paid for it out of our own pockets. (A claim few to no professional environmentalists can make.)

As a result of the publicity, my site was hacked. My colleague Willie Soon was raked over the coals in our nation’s most recognizable scandal sheet. Greenpeace went after another colleague’s employer with FOIA requests (these were denied). Our lead writer, Christopher Monckton, was subjected to the best insults the great brains of our attackers could muster (he survived). (A series of articles on the flap can be found here.)

We thought the screeching would never stop.

No Good News, Please

And yet it’s puzzling. Here we were offering the world what was potentially great news. The world would not warm dangerously! Temperature increases would max out. That’s something to celebrate!

Isn’t it?

Only our message wasn’t taken that way. It was as if we were betrayers, traitors, scalawags. Used car salesmen — lawyers, even! — were held in higher esteem.


Well, it’s logically true that we might be wrong and the IPCC right. The world could grow much warmer than we guessed. Yet that mere logical possibility can’t have been enough to incense so many, could it? Because it’s also logically possible that the IPCC is wrong and we are correct. Or — and I ask you to stretch your mind here — it’s also so that none of us are right and that the climate system is more unpredictable than anybody has yet figured.

(Plus, in our favor, the observations so far are more in line with what we rather than the IPCC predicted. That counts for something, but not for everything.)

Anyway, it can’t be because we might be wrong that we made so many enemies.

It had to be because we might be right.

Gloom & Doom Pats

For many in this debate, only the worst is believable. Only the worst is acceptable. Any deviation from doom is unthinkable, and anyone suggesting there may be a glimmer of hope must be ostracized.

Our experience and the experience of other skeptics of doom (like Bjorn Lomberg) is the reason you do not often hear of serious alternate assessments of the science and the risks. People don’t want the grief. It’s not that this alternate work isn’t being done, but it’s couched in a language impenetrable to non-physicists.

Now the reason only the worst is acceptable is because if there is no real warming threat, then no action need be taken. And if nothing need be done, then we don’t need all those expensive “solutions.” That conclusion is too depressing for some folks.

Even if people don’t understand the science, and few do, they can easily see the visceral and paradoxical reaction from activists and politicians to potential good news. And everybody can see what the proposed solutions would mean to their wallets. Combine all that with the obvious evidence that the current climate is far from unusual, and it’s natural to be suspicious and say “Wait and see.”

Far from being “anti-intellectual,” waiting is the smart thing to do.



1The paper is January 2015’s “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model” by Christopher Monckton, Willie W. H. Soon, David R. Legates, and William M. Briggs in Science Bulletin. This was followed in August of 2015 by “Keeping it simple: the value of an irreducibly simple climate model” by the same authors and journal. On the so-called Consensus, see the peer-reviewed paper “Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change” by the same authors in Science & Education.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Dean Bruckner

    Thanks William! Russ Douthat’s ignorance in these matters seems unlimited.

  • Craig Roberts

    The hive-mind cannot countenance any contradictions! If the herd says run, you must run. If not you are endangering yourself, others, and ultimately the herd itself. Dissenters must be purged for the good of the herd. Fear of the future is faith in our leaders. Panic is better than apathy. Everyone give praise honor and glory to our savior…Chicken Little.

    When faith was abandoned, fear took over.

  • GPS Daddy

    Hmmm, knowing Him means knowing that He created a world that can handle man. Even billions of men.

  • Timothy Horton

    Only our message wasn’t taken that way. Why?

    Because the work was garbage – severely cherry picked data, brutal beginner’s errors, dishonest twisting of actual scientific results throughout. The paper was published in a Chinese science journal which failed to do a thorough peer review. When the piece of politically motivated AGW denier offal came out real climate scientists tore it a new one.

    Misdiagnosis of Earth climate sensitivity based on energy balance model results

    Mark Richardson, Zeke Hausfather, Dana A. Nuccitelli, Ken Rice, John P. Abraham

    Abstract: Monckton of Brenchley et al. (Sci Bull 60:122–135, 2015) (hereafter called M15) use a simple energy balance model to estimate climate response. They select parameters for this model based on semantic arguments, leading to different results from those obtained in physics-based studies. M15 did not validate their model against observations, but instead created synthetic test data based on subjective assumptions. We show that M15 systematically underestimate warming: since 1990, most years were warmer than their modelled upper limit. During 2000–2010, RMS error and bias are approximately 150 % and 350 % larger than for the CMIP5 median, using either the Berkeley Earth or Cowtan and Way surface temperature data. We show that this poor performance can be explained by a logical flaw in the parameter selection and that selected parameters contradict observational estimates. M15 also conclude that climate has a near-instantaneous response to forcing, implying no net energy imbalance for the Earth. This contributes to their low estimates of future warming and is falsified by Argo float measurements that show continued ocean heating and therefore a sustained energy imbalance. M15’s estimates of climate response and future global warming are not consistent with measurements and so cannot be considered credible.

    One of the authors, Willie Soon, had other climate change papers by him withdrawn after it was discovered he was paid beforehand by the Koch foundation to produce anti-global warming results. These people really are the lowest form of anti-science political scum.

    • Nate Winchester

      The paper was published in a Chinese science journal which failed to do a thorough peer review.

      The same journal that published “Misdiagnosis of Earth climate sensitivity based on energy balance model results” which you quote. So I guess by your standard we can throw that out too.

      • Timothy Horton

        It’s customary for science journals to allow the publishing of rebuttal papers to previous works in the same journal. Even if you throw out this rebuttal there are still a dozen more making the same points easily found online at professional science sites. Monckton’s paper was the worst sort of pseudoscientific trash and all the hand waving in the world won’t fix it.

        • Nate Winchester

          Like the rebuttal to that one Briggs already published… let’s see… 2 years ago.

          Monckton’s paper was the worst sort of pseudoscientific trash and all the hand waving in the world won’t fix it.

          Funny, you think all the hand waving in the world is enough to ruin it, so an equal amount of hand waving is sufficient to fix it. Especially funny is that Briggs outright said in the article what could be done to debunk it yet you don’t even bother with that trifle…

  • William M. Briggs

    Horton’s hate-filled and scientifically ignorant comment below is all the proof needed for the contention that good news is not welcomed.

    The best he could do is cut and paste criticisms of our work, which he himself does not understand. That criticisms were made is all that Horton requires. Not having any knowledge of the field, he failed to realize we answered these criticisms, in the accepted manner, in the August paper. (And in other venues, etc.)

    Horton also repeats the lie that Soon was paid for this work, when I have provided ready links showing this is in fact a lie. (And one must wonder whether Horton himself was paid to make his comments here.)

    This is what we’re up against, folks. Blind anger, monumental, unteachable ignorance, and a certain conviction that any who dares disagree must be part of a conspiracy. You cannot reason with the Hortons of the debate, for they will not and cannot listen.

    I believe the best we can hope for is to wait another thirty, forty years for the uniformed emotion to die down.

    • Timothy Horton

      LOL! You and your paid prostitute buddy Soon have as much respect in the scientific community as Philip Morris has in a lung cancer clinic. But you don’t care. You probably make good coin producing this scientifically worthless dreck and lying to the scientifically illiterate conservative goobers.

      • Nate Winchester

        You probably make good coin producing this scientifically worthless dreck and lying to the scientifically illiterate conservative goobers.

        For someone who claims they are so in love with science you sure love to throw out hypothesis without any evidence or data in support of it.

        Very bad science….

    • Craig Roberts

      It’s freaky weird how Mr. Horton accuses you of a mirror image of what a rational person might level at him and his cohort. “Climate science generates millions of dollars for people willing to go along with demagogues in government? You’re the one taking money from greedy capitalist pigs!”

      Whatever evidence you can give for reason to be skeptical is twisted to show that your skepticism is motivated by evil intentions. It’s eerily reminiscent of communist show trials. Anything short of undying allegiance is seen as ‘denial’ which is tantamount to treason.

      • Timothy Horton

        The Koch brothers and other fossil fuel producers hire stooges like Briggs, Soon, and Watts to produce anti-science propaganda. The goal is to fool the public into thinking there is a scientific controversy over anthropogenic climate change when there is virtually none in the scientific community. It’s the same tactic the cigarette companies used when the dangers of tobacco use became known. The same tactic Creationists use to try and cast doubt on evolutionary theory.

        Here’s an interesting tidbit you can easily verify. 22 Republican senators all from oil producing states wrote fat-headed idiot Trump a letter last week urging he pull out of the Paris Accord. Those 22 senators received over $10 million in documented campaign contributions from the Koch brothers and another estimated $40 – 50 million in undocumented under-the-table funds. So who’s bending over and grabbing their ankles for the $$$ in this case?

        • Craig Roberts

          It always comes down to greed, doesn’t it? Mr. Briggs is a Greedy Evil Republican just like all those other G.E.R.s. Did it ever occur to you that he may have no interest in getting rich at the expense of the world in which he also happens to live? What good does it do him if he gets rich but has to live in the dystopian future that our betters insist will be the result of inaction?

          He wants to get to the truth of what’s best for society just like you. He just doesn’t think that freaking out to the point that we are handing over all of our time, talent, and treasure to the government so that it can save us from the same ‘problem’ that the government is forcing down our throats is prudent.

          On second thought, that’s my opinion. Mr. Briggs can speak for himself. I just don’t discern any evil intentions in what he has said so far.

          • Timothy Horton

            Look at the info I just provided on his partner in crime Soon. You really think Briggs isn’t lining his own pockets by producing this dishonest anti-science garbage?

          • Craig Roberts

            Like I said, the only motive you can ascribe to such ostensibly evil people is money. It’s very one dimensional.

            I personally would trash this junk science for free. My only reward would be to purify science so that charlatans would no longer be welcome. You’d agree with that motive, wouldn’t you?

          • Timothy Horton

            Soon was caught red handed taking his fossil fuel company bribes. His scientific credibility is zero as is that of Monckton and Briggs who barfed up that pitiful excuse for a science paper. What more evidence do you need?

          • Craig Roberts

            Evidence to what? Convict him of heresy?

            My own personal opinion is that he is providing a valuable service to the science community, our country, and society as a whole. The way he is doing this is by asking questions that make many people uncomfortable. Those same people would love to do whatever it takes to make him shut-up so that the hive-mind can get back to saving the world from itself.

            I’m not sure if he thinks that way, but I say we desperately need dissenters when the so called ‘consensus’ is obviously losing it’s shizznit.

          • Timothy Horton

            My own personal opinion is that he is providing a valuable service to the science community, our country, and society as a whole

            By providing junk propaganda science and deliberately lying to the public over a serious scientific issue? You sure have a fluxed up sense of value.

          • Craig Roberts

            See, here we go with the funhouse mirror of accusations. “He’s questioning junk propaganda science? NO! He’s the one providing junk propaganda science!”

          • Timothy Horton

            His crap paper was thoroughly rebutted in any number of reputable professional science sites including NASA GISS. I’ll write up a description of why this steaming pile stinks so bad tomorrow when I get a chance. Are you one of those know nothings who thinks we should “teach the controversy” over evolution and a spherical earth too?

          • Craig Roberts

            No. I just don’t bow to the consensus.

          • Timothy Horton

            Since you don’t understand the science how do you decide what to accept? Whichever side makes the bigger flashier display? That’s all this BS propaganda is, some sciencey-sounding nonsense to cover the propaganda and lies. Real science doesn’t operate that way.

          • Craig Roberts

            Here we go again. “You don’t trust the magic of science? You must be purged! SCIENCE cannot tolerate propaganda and all non-science is propaganda. ALL HAIL THE INVINCIBLE OZ!”

          • Timothy Horton

            Ha! I hit the nail right on the head. You don’t understand the science even a little so you go with the lying propaganda telling you what you want to hear. Typical.

          • Craig Roberts

            You sure did! No blind faith in you. 😉

          • Craig Roberts

            Since you don’t understand the science how do you decide what to accept?

            Dude. Really? Isn’t that straight outta some Star Trek episode about the hive-mind? I recall some android blowing a gasket because he could not compute ‘non-science’.

          • carpenter

            you don’t begin to understand the science, nor does anyone else. What is certain is that when you and your ilk get the type of control you want, we’ll all be better off dead.

          • Timothy Horton

            you don’t begin to understand the science, nor does anyone else.

            Don’t project your scientific ignorance onto others, especially those climate scientists who have studied the phenomenon is depth for decades.

          • Craig Roberts

            What motive does he have to lie? Money can’t compensate for ruining the earth. But if he doesn’t believe he’s ruining the earth then he’s not lying!

          • Timothy Horton

            The money he makes from lying will buy him a rich comfortable lifestyle while many others on the planet suffer. Briggs isn’t a scientist, he’s an entertainer. There’s a long tradition of professional entertainers like Briggs and Bill O’Reilly lying their butts off and telling the conservative what they want to hear.

          • Craig Roberts

            Maybe you’re right. Maybe one day we’ll find out that he was a secret scammer getting rich off of the gullibility of…wait…this makes no sense…Al Gore is the one getting rich.

          • Ken Jones

            So when Soon takes money it’s a bribe but when Gore makes 10s of millions on a hyperbolic film no the subject it’s a public service?

        • Ken Jones

          And how much has Al Gore made on climate change charades? Last I checked he was worth in excess of $250 million, most of it made since his Inconvenient Truth… How about all those university professors jetting to conferences here and there to present their evidence that the jets they just flew warmed the planet another 0.001 degree? Not one of them paupers. The idea that money is at the root of the climate change debate is self evident. Claiming that it’s only the greedy deniers who are getting filthy rich on it is patently false. So you need to find some other motivation than money to impugn the deniers… because the climate fanatics are no better than Jim & Tammy Fay Baker or Joel Osteen leading a flock to the promised land while picking their pockets along the way.

    • Timothy Horton

      On the well documented case of Willie Soon being paid by the fossil fuel companies, I’ll let the N.Y.Times report speak for itself.

      Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

      “For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

      One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

      But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

      He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

      The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.”


      How about it Briggs? You have a good explanation for the $1.2 million Soon took from the oil companies for his “deliverable” lies about climate change?

    • Craig Roberts

      Although it pains me to say it, I think that in thirty to forty years the ‘climate’ will be the least of our worries. Having to deal with real problems like nuclear warfare will make our forays into ‘climate change’ seem like the age of innocence.

      We’re like old people that don’t have anything more pressing to talk about than the weather…literally.

    • davidrev17

      Mr. Briggs:

      Thanks so much for continuing to present these very lucid, or unobscured laser-like views into this war of worldview’s, raging in western culture.

      Now, I decided to send this almost presciently relevant quote to you – from a truly enlightening book I’ve been reading – hoping you might comment as to whether Dr. Alister McGrath’s analysis (3 Ph.D’s.) really does apply to all these intolerantly dissenting “voices” of scientistic UN-reason, with which we “science-denying” Christians typically encounter?

      As a former atheist & scientist (molecular biophysics), turned world-class Christian theologian, I’ve found his contributions to this “endtimes” Luciferian-inspired clash of worldview’s – i.e., between theism and naturalism – have greatly enhanced my own limited understanding; even though I remain philosophically opposed to Dr. McGrath’s adherence to Theistic Evolution. (BTW: I’m a flat-earth-believing, intellectual simpleton, bible-thumping evangelical Christian layperson – so give it to me straight, will ya’!)

      * * *

      “In one sense, the cultural authority of science rests on its principled refusal to comment on matters that lie beyond its domain of competency. Questions of value and meaning, for example, are non-empirical, and are widely regarded as lying beyond its scope. The cultural and intellectual authority of science depends upon its absolute neutrality in ethical, political, and religious debates. This point was made by Darwin’s great supporter Thomas H. Huxley (1825– 95), who declared that science “commits suicide when it adopts a creed.” Huxley made this dramatic statement toward the end of a remarkable speech of April 1880 at the Royal Institution, London, celebrating the “coming of age” of The Origin of Species. He was right. If science is hijacked by fundamentalists, whether religious or anti-religious, its intellectual integrity is subverted and its cultural authority compromised.”

      — Alister E. McGrath, “Dawkins’ God: From the Selfish Gene to the God Delusion” (2015), Second Edition, Chapter three, “Blind Faith? Evidence, Proof, and Rationality in Science and Religion.”

      • Could you please visit my site and use the Contact form to email me? I don’t often use Disqus. Thanks.

  • GPS Daddy

    When a well engineered machine is running with a light load it will run cool. But heat will develop as the machine comes under a load. You expect heat to grow. But a well engineered machine will be designed to handle the heat that comes from being under load.

    The question is, is the earth a well engineered machine?

    • Timothy Horton

      The question is, is the earth a well engineered machine?

      No. The Earth is a planet which formed around 4.55 billion years ago by accretion of a solar nebula. It has a rather complex geophysical makeup which has produced huge changes in the surface, the temperature, the atmosphere at various stages over that time. In the last few hundred years the human burning of fossil fuels has changed the atmosphere dramatically and made it trap much more heat energy received from the sun. Through simple physics the average temperature has risen faster than any time known. Because the Earth’s surface is not uniform the rise manifests itself as rapidly changing climate in many parts of the world. The ice caps are melting and sea level is rising, more and heavier rain is falling in some areas, deserts are spreading in others.

      This isn’t the hottest the planet has ever been but it’s by far the hottest when we have 7.4 billion people heavily dependent on a stable climate for their food production and distribution.

      The average temperature rise and severe climate changes will continue to happen and continue to produce negative effects on our quality of life unless we do something about it.

      • Ken Jones

        “we have 7.4 billion people heavily dependent on a stable climate for their food production and distribution”

        Here is your problem, whether you or Briggs are correct. Climate is not and has never been stable. Nothing you or anyone else alive today has proposed or could possibly do will in any way stabilize climate. If you disagree, I challenge you to present any scientific evidence that you have a scheme to stabilize climate change. So if your aim is to stabilize climate, you have picked the wrong enemy… the enemy is not the people who accept that climate is changing and always has but who reject the idea that man is demonstrably any more a destabilizing factor than any number of natural phenomena including solar incidence, water vapor content in the atmosphere, vulcanism etc. Stopping people from stating the obvious, which is that climate changes and that factors other than man have always and will always contribute to that change will not solve your problem… do you have a proposal that will or are you simply looking to pick fights or perhaps pushing some other agenda that a changing climate conveniently masks? Perhaps you should focus on making society more amenable to a changing climate? That might be a much more tractable problem than stopping the climate from changing.

        • Timothy Horton

          No one said climate has always been stable or expects efforts now to make it stable. Up to now however it has been relatively stable, changing slowly enough so ecosystems could adapt to it. The problem is in the last 150 years humans have screwed up the atmosphere so much we are seeing the rate of change be drastically faster than ever before in the history of the planet. Many species simply can’t evolve fast enough to keep up. The rapid change is destroying ecosystems and food webs all over the planet. If you think humans aren’t going to be affected by having the food chain destroyed you (or more likely your kids and grandkids) are in for a rude shock.

      • Nunyadambizness

        I have a question for you–back in the mid-90’s other planets in this same solar system were ALSO warming, including Mars. Was it my pickup truck that did that, too? Or, maybe there is (was) another explanation, like Solar energy? Also, since 1998 the Earth has actually NOT been warming, in contrast to the “hockey stick” graph and others like it. Could that also be due to something other than my pickup truck? Maybe the sun hasn’t been pushing out as much energy as before? Lastly, I’ve seen some “scientists” lately come out with a possible “ice age” in our future. Is that also due to global warming? Are these the same scientists that were predicting with 100% confidence back int the 70’s that a new ice age was imminent and unstoppable? Oh, wait–some of those guys went with the global warming thing 30 years ago, didn’t they? Maybe they”re back on the ice age train? Hard to tell…

      • Jim Walker

        The usual textbook answers

        • GPS Daddy

          Horton should not have been able to reply to my comment. I have him blocked. I can’t see his reply to my when I am logged in. There might be a software glitch but more likely TH sought out to circumvent the block.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! When you put someone on block it means you can’t see their posts. It doesn’t stop them from seeing or responding to your posts. This technology stuff confuses you no end, doesn’t it? 🙂

        • Timothy Horton

          Which get to be textbook answers because they been scientifically verified enough to be considered fact.

          • Yawrate

            You should stick with doughnuts.

          • ncsugrant

            I am guessing you did not major in English.
            What exactly does “scientifically verified enough” mean? Or, “considered fact”?

  • Christian Cowboy

    There seems to be only one side to this conversation – the climate changers are right – anyone with a different idea is wrong. Why bother with any discussion because there is none – the climate changers just show disrespect, call people names and have a very high regard for themselves.

    • Timothy Horton

      Scientific disputes are settled by the results published in the primary scientific literature. They are not decided on fluffed up propaganda web pages like the ones run by Briggs, Watts, and others out to make a quick buck off the gullible public.

      The overwhelming amount of published scientific research shows anthropogenic climate change is real and will have real and large negative consequences. There are only a handful of scientists disagreeing and virtually all of them are funded by the fossil fuel industries leading to a huge conflict of interest as in the case of Willie Soon.

      • ncsugrant

        You mention making a “quick buck off the gullible public”, and fail to mention Al Gore.
        As for there being a small number of scientists who disagree with the consensus, the claim seems tough to document. In view of the fact that the peer review process is hopelessly corrupted, and all government funding and tenured faculty positions go to the adherents of the new religion, it would seem difficult to obtain an accurate count.

  • MikeW

    The Global Warming of Doom cult is well-funded, and their doomsday message is alluring to many uninformed people. I agree with Briggs’ comment below that it will probably take another 30-40 years with no climate apocalypse for the hysteria to abate.

  • Nunyadambizness

    As a former Chemistry major, I rejected the notion of “global warming” just as soon as Algore stated “The science is settled!” As one who studied the Scientific Method, I reject Algores’s statement out of hand–SCIENCE is NEVER settled. It is ALWAYS open to new experimentation and analyses challenging the initial assessment and theory. Consensus is NOT SCIENCE, it is POLITICS. Add to it that those who bleat the loudest about the imminent destruction of our planet will also attack anyone who disagrees with their assertions, and it’s painfully obvious that this is not about science–it’s about $$$.

    As I’ve said before: If someone comes to you and explains to you a problem that you didn’t know you had, then explains that if you give them money they can solve your problem, but angrily denounces you if you question the assertions they make, RUN. This is snake oil salesmanship in a new century.

    • Dean Bruckner

      More than 25 years ago, when I first heard NPR report that scientists considered CO2 a pollutant, I knew it was a fraud. And so it is.

      P.S. I haven’t listened to NPR for a decade. And the decade before that it was only for Car Talk and hearing Nina Totenburg fail to report on all the Supreme Court decisions that she didn’t like.

  • Michael Dowd

    Ross has become, or maybe always was, somewhat wish-washy in his “conservative” positions. Surely it must have nothing to do with keeping his job for the New York Times. So is he a sell-out? Not necessarily. Perhaps wish-washy is today’s equivalent of yesterday’s heroic. So widespread has the Liberal madness on global warming and other manufactured problems that anyone without an instant salute to these godly works risks being burned at the stake of public opinion. So maybe we should give Ross a break? Heil Libber!

  • Gary

    Those who are worried that the weather is getting hotter because there are too many people can help solve that problem by ending their own lives. If they really care about the future of the planet.

    • Diogenes71

      I would think that the people who claim they are convinced that climate change, a weasel term, is real, would be out front showing the scientific underpinnings to all. Yet they do not. They expend vast amounts of energy on stifling opposition voice. Why? Why not tell the truth? Incessantly? Prove your opponents are wrong in their finding. Isn’t that more appealaing to intelligent people than trying to silence the opposition?

      I am amazed at the lack of scientists speaking about “climate change” in the mass media. It seems only politicians and celebrities (Gore and DeCaprio and others of their ilk) speak of it as if they were speaking the truth. The fact that they offer no evidence, in this world of post-fact, post truth reasoning, that is not surprising.

      The more I study the climate and the prophets of doom, the more convinced I am that it is a hue hoax. If one returns to original sources, one can see the fudged data, the lies, the deflection and the statements of the leaders that it is false.

  • Craig Roberts

    Galileo was once considered a ‘denier’. Now he’s revered.

    • Timothy Horton

      Galileo provided positive supporting evidence for his position instead of just putting out propaganda and easily refutable lies too.

      • ncsugrant

        Name calling is the province of those without facts.
        Refute away. I know the world wants to know what of your wealth of scientific knowledge can be imparted in this debate.

  • Karen

    What effect will a 2 degree rise in the worldwide average temperature (not that everywhere will see only a 2 degree increase, but that the entire world will be two degrees warmer on average — some places will be enormously hotter than that) on cereal agriculture? Rainfall patterns in North America? Coral reefs in the tropics? Can you provide some evidence of what this means in specific instances?

    • Dean Bruckner

      Well, it’s been more than 2 degrees warmer and more than 2 degrees colder than today in the past. So tomorrow will be like today, only more so!

  • Timothy Horton

    Why the Monckton/Briggs Simple Climate Model is garbage

    In 2105 four well known climate change deniers published a paper in a Chinese science journal offering a simplified climate model and supposedly showing all the models used by the IPCC and other climate monitoring organizations are wrong. The effort was widely rejected by the actual climate science community for its major flaws.

    1. The Moncton model does not match observed historical temperature at all, being off by as much as 350% in many cases. Because it is such a simple minded effort the model cannot be tweaked or adjusted to better reflect and model reality.

    2. The Moncton model makes the assumption since the Earth’s temperature varied by by no more than 1% over the last 800K years then there must be no positive feedback mechanisms (i.e greenhouse gases) which can cause the temperature to exceed that 1%. This is demonstrably false as it ignored the well understood effects of higher greenhouse gas concentrations in the last 150 years. They basically defined the problem away. This is like selling a scale to obese people which only goes to 150 lbs. and going “see, you only weigh 150, you can’t be overweight!”

    3. The Moncton paper ignores all the recent research explaining much of why having the temperature be on the cooler side of projections was a short term phenomenon and not a problem with the IPCC models. This has been evidenced by the rapid temperature swing upward in the last two years which has put the actual temperature back almost exactly at the nominal IPCC projections

    4. The most glaring mistake was for the Monckton model to assume the Earth responds instantly to changes in heat. This is known to be false as the Earth has a huge thermal inertia and often takes decades to respond to additional heat inputs. This fundamental error is so egregious it’s hard to believe it was ignorance and not deliberate deception.

    The bottom line is this paper is trash pseudoscience written for a scientifically illiterate audience to milk money from the RW conservative faction who will grasp at any straw showing the science they don’t like is wrong.

  • aqrobles

    After reading this thread, I have come to the conclusion that Horton is a fraud. No one is this devoid of self-awareness that he doesn’t realize how obnoxious his persona is. I think his real goal is to debunk Climate Change ‘science’ by presenting himself as an amalgam of the ignorant ‘champions’ of it. If my reaction is anything to go on, you have repelled many from the Cause. Nicely Done!

    • Dean Bruckner

      No, he tells lies because he does the deeds of his father, the Father of Lies. If he had the chance to kill us and get away with it, I believe he would do so.

The Tiniest Casket
Jennifer Hartline
More from The Stream
Connect with Us