This story is unavailable.

We all know you will never allow academic heresy……

This is not a binary issue.

Human use of fossil fuels is largely responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration by approximately one ten-thousandth of the atmosphere since approximately the Van Buren administration.

That increase is largely responsible for the one-degree-and-change increase in average global surface temperature over the same period.

That period followed a modestly cooler than average period known as the Little Ice Age. The LIA lasted for centuries.

The Little Ice Age followed a modestly warmer than average period known as the Medieval Warm Period. The MWP lasted for centuries. The Vikings explored the North Atlantic all the way to Newfoundland. They settled parts of Greenland and enjoyed a diet that was 80–20 land-based before the climate cooled and their diet became 80–20 sea-based. The population dwindled as it cooled and an increase in icebergs made the passage back and forth to Scandinavia more difficult for visitors and traders. We’ve known all of this since it happened. At the same time, the Anasazi civilization suffered through prolonged, severe droughts of the kind we have been forewarned will reoccur in what is now the American Southwest. Some South American civilizations also suffered through similar droughts. In both cases, the civilizations collapsed. We’ve known all of this since it happened. At the same time, Lake Naivashi, in Kenya, dried up completely. It is presently used for both drinking water and hydroelectric power, to support a much larger population than existed a thousand years ago — and it has not come close to drying up. The MWP happened. It was quite warm. Michael Mann tried to write this out of the climate history like an Egyptian Pharaoh would wipe away carvings of the historical achievements of ancestors that he did not like. His basis was proxy studies using tree rings — which as it turns out get wider with temperature only to a certain point, and thus are not reliable to verify the occurrence of high temperatures. At no time was there any effort to explain how these events happened — events that, since they occurred, have been attributed to warmer climate. This did not boost credibility. Even now, the period is dismissed as “local” — local to all these places? Or it is posited that because the Southern Hemisphere experienced average temperatures, not warmer, then the MWP was not global — even though half the world being warmer and half the world being average would mean that the world was warmer than average, and we are told today that not every spot on the earth will be warmer all at the same time. Some of you concede a MWP that was as warm as the temperatures we experienced as we approached the end of the 20th century, but not quite as warm as today. OK but that would be one or two tenths of a degree off. And the MWP lasted for centuries. And there was no runaway warming.

The warming since the most dire predictions were made in the late 1980s has not kept up with those predictions — whether or not you accept a “hiatus.” For fifteen years you admitted a “hiatus” and blamed it on various factors. There were over 50 peer reviewed papers conceding the hiatus and tying it to one or more of these factors. They could not have all been true but they were all published and peer reviewed. Now you say that it was all an error of instrumentation. That is peer reviewed too. This peer review thing is not all it is cracked up to be, apparently. And what of all these contradictory papers? It is your side that wants to limit human activity that is otherwise free — the burden is on you to prove your case and it is full of contradictions. And the main answer to the “hiatus” seems to have gathered around deep ocean warming — we simpletons need to not focus only on the surface, you say. Except that the whole problem has been framed — by you — as warming of the surface, since the issue existed. So, what you are doing now is moving the goalposts. Goalposts that you erected.

The predictions as to what global warming will in turn do to the weather have been all over the map. These too contradict each other. Will we have more snow or less? Should we take photos of snowmen and put them in a time capsule for our grandkids? Or will we get more snow? Now matter what kind of winter we get, THAT’s global warming. We joke about shoveling global warming and you label this ignorant, and yet we are saying it not because it’s called global warming but because YOU all said we could kiss snow good-bye. Now you say there will be more snow. Same for hurricanes. Tornadoes. I’ve even read earthquakes. Seriously. And then we have the Al Gore thing. You say he’s no scientist, we should not consider what he says — but then you give him awards. And you’re the ones giving him airplay — not us. I do not know how many years have come and gone without the Arctic being ice free after Al Gore said that the Arctic would be ice free but it is more than 1.

And then there is Paul Ehrlich — or there was Paul Ehrlich — and the Earth Day crowd warning of cold and of low crop yield resulting from cold. There wouldn’t be enough food. We would all face starvation by the mid-1980s. There was the Time article and the Newsweek cover. You can deny it all you want, say that this line of thought did not consume serious scientists, but it was the position of the environmental activists that the world was cooling and that THAT was bad, and if the experts disagreed, they never let on publically — so, they either allowed what they knew to be false scaremongering to continue because in their minds the means justified the ends, or they recognized that nobody knew what was going to happen with the weather.

It’s not a binary issue and the burden of proof is on you. It has to be man produced the CO2; all other things being equal, CO2 warms the Earth… which you have… and which few people have ever disagreed with…

…AND of all those things, CO2 is the QB; more CO2 will warm the Earth faster not more slowly even though that’s not how insulation usually works; and that in turn will cause specific harm that we can resolve through measures X and Y… which you are no closer to having than you were 1o or 20 years ago.

And yet anybody who questions ANYTHING you have to say is not a skeptic or someone with a different angle — or even who thinks you might be right but have not proven it — but a “denier.” Like an “unbeliever” or “infidel” or “heretic” to be shunned, banished from accepted public discourse.

Rarely has a weaker case to silence opposition been made.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Patrick Trombly’s story.