Here’s one we all knew about — and by “we”, I mean anyone with the faintest degree of rational thought — and therefore it should come as no surprise to us:
Skepticism about climate change has resurfaced, as some experts claim the exact causes of global warming remain unclear and that the policies addressing it are motivated more by money than by science.
And in other breaking news, we can report that Gen. George Custer is experiencing some difficulty with various Indian tribes in Wyoming.
But to return to our main story:
Lindzen explained the basic math behind what he called ‘climate alarm.’ He said the emphasis on lowering specific emissions like carbon dioxide (CO₂) simply doesn’t produce the worldwide temperature changes advocates say it will.
The scientist noted that the planet’s temperature has fluctuated significantly throughout recorded history and science still can’t definitively prove what the exact cause of both extreme warming and cooling events has been.
‘We don’t understand the glaciation that occurred in the 15th century. You know, so what was going on then? Inadequate CO₂?’ Lindzen said of the event in the Northern Hemisphere known as the Little Ice Age.
It was caused by all those 15th-century SUVs and trucks, you idiot. And of course they had SUVs and trucks back then, but they were called “carts” and were powered by horses (and oxen) — a major source of methane pollution, as we all know.
And:
Lindzen said the financial implications of controlling the multi-trillion-dollar energy industry have been the true motivation for politicians to support flawed research that argues small temperature increases will lead to immediate disasters.
‘The fact that you have a multi-trillion dollar industry and you have an opportunity to completely overturn it had a great appeal to a lot of politicians,’ he explained. ‘They go wild on it. Another half degree and we’re doomed, and so on. The public knows this is nonsense.’
I leave it for you to decide which political parties have supported the eco-panic most rabidly, and why.
I find it interesting that this article comes to us courtesy of the dreadful muckraking rag Daily Mail, a newspaper which has provided us with panic-stricken apocalyptic warnings of ecological doom for well over twenty years. (Because “scare” headlines sell newspapers, also duh.)
And the only reason that they’ve decided to publish this little article is that people no longer believe the climate alarmists, and are starting to rebel against all those idiotic and destructive “NetZero by 2030” political goals.
how about they reexamine the “science” behind the hole in the ozone (duh – seasonal) that caused the industry to shift away from cheap CFCs to more expensive (and more profitable) alternatives which then caused a chain of prematurely obsolescence throughout the heating and cooling industry? I’m pretty sure that was the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent that brought us todays climate change kerfuffle.
Years ago I remember reading somewhere that back in the 70’s an asshole destroyed all the core samples and altered the records, so as to make all information going forward unproveable. Everything since then has been utter fabrication.
Regardless, as far as I’m concerned, every single institution has went out of it’s way to demonstrate outright lying and falsehoods (probably for pay) so that virtually none of them will ever be believable as far as I’m concerned.
You only get one chance to destroy my trust. After that, you may as well be dead.
Whether we want to or not we are going back to the 15th century and there is nothing to be done about it but to adapt. Or not…..
Seems to me that someone, years back, charted solar activity (solar flares, solar temps, etc.) with global temp cycles and found a perfect match. More solar activity, warmer planet. Less solar activity, well, I think we all get the picture here. Funny how these scientists don’t remember that little fact.
It doesn’t conform to their narrative.
how do you control the sun? On the other hand, if you present your “data” in a certain way you can control the behavior of people.
Given that every prediction the Warm-Mongers have made that came with a deadline has failed to come true, why should anyone believe anything they say? Science works by making predictions, testing them, and then modifying the hypothesis on which they are based, or discarding it altogether if the predictions fail to match reality. Only climate “science” and Marxism are never held to that standard, thereby marking the dedication to them as religious in nature (religious predictions either don’t come with specific deadlines attached, or the failures of the predictions are ignored, or the deadline is post-mortem and hence non-falsifiable).
Custer ran into his final problem in Eastern Montana. I know it is pedantic, but I visited that area earlier this year and it jumped out at me.
All those rectangle states look the same to me. [/Texan]
You just have a problem with 90-degree corners.
Oh, no! Mathematical warming!