Global Climate Strike: An Inconvenient Data Point; Your Global Warming Confessions

brayton-featured

Today, children around the world are participating in a Global Climate Strike.  I won’t criticize them for this highly misguided activity but rather the adults – including, notably and disturbingly, educators – who have foisted on them a hysteria that is almost entirely free of facts and reasoning. For example, one important data point these children are almost certainly not learning in school or anywhere: the actual extent of the greenhouse gases generated by humans and, thereby, what we can conclude about our (very limited) culpability in global warming.

It is less than 6%.  ALL of man’s fossil fueled activity – all factories, all power plants, all manufacturing, all cars, all countries, all 7.5 billion people – contributes less than 6% of greenhouse gases generated on the planet.  The balance is generated naturally by Earth itself.

Less than 6%.  Quite the inconvenient data point. The case that this is the tipping point for a global warming trend would have to be quite strong. Unfortunately, it is not. It is based upon computer models and a temperature data set that is furiously being fiddled to show a smooth, upward trend since 1880, when the use of fossil fuels began to take off.

One other item to point to before we get to confessing our own global warming shortcomings: Competitive Enterprise Institute’s enlightening list of “50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions“.  One especially important item to note: with regard to global temperature trends, the climate panic by certain scientists in the 1970’s focused on global cooling, not global warming.  And since then, the many, many missed deadlines for apocalyptic consequences of global warming and Our Failure To Act are frankly comical but more to the point, thoroughly discredit the hysterical admonitions that We Are Out of Time and We Have to Act Now or (literally what some are saying) The World Will End.

By the way: yes, “global warming”, not “climate change”.  I refuse to go along with this duplicitous re-branding which is also strongly indicative of how proponents view the weakness of the case for their theory.

Now on to our global warming confessions – inspired by NBC News’ shrill, accusatory page “Climate Confessions: Where do you fall short in preventing climate change?” which inadvertently and starkly enumerates all of the sacrifices that would have to be made to become submissive to this religio … er, theory.

I’ll start.  I confess that my global warming sin is a bad attitude.  I really appreciate the benefits and relatively low cost of fossil fuels.  I thoroughly enjoy heat in the winter and cooling in the summer and lights and my devices and letting a machine wash the laundry and all of the other machines that save us all from much hard labor and the convenience of driving around in a car and many other things; some necessary, some simply convenient – all at a reasonable cost.

Your turn.  Please share with us your global warming confessions.



  • Rhett Hardwick

    This is in the nature of education. I can well remember my daughter being warned not to eat at McDonald’s. McDonald’s was “destroying the rain forest and hampering the discovery of a cure for cancer”. I recall asking a teacher “which rain forest”, she was astounded to find there is more than one.

    • Joe Smith

      Sure she didn’t mean RainForest Cafe?

  • bagida’wewinini

    As the oceans warm the affects can be seen and felt in our state’s beautiful Narragansett Bay. For the first time in my memory the Bay’s waters were closed to shellfishing two years ago because there was concern about the presence of a toxic algae bloom (usually found in normally warm water). After a couple of weeks the Bay reopened and I returned to work. So to answer you as to what you are calling climate confessions I’d say mine is having an unscheduled vacation

  • Christopher C. Reed

    Bless me Father Gore for I have sinned. My thawtcrime is questioning the authority of the received narrative.

    From what you read in the papers, (Scientists confirm July set new global heat record Projo Aug 15th.) you might get the impression that July, 2019 was the hottest July on record in the U.S. Alas, that honor goes to July, 1936, followed by 1938, 1901, 1930, and 1931, with this July languishing in 65th place. Furthermore, July, 2019 was notably lagging in its percentage of days over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, distantly trailing all-time champions July, 1936, ’34, ’01, ’30, and so on. The country was far hotter when the atmospheric CO2 level was much lower than it is today.

    Egged on by their teachers, students are marching in a new children’s crusade against climate change. Would that they were better instructed in critical thinking, particularly that pesky ‘examine the source documents’ part. A well-nigh perfect ‘teaching moment’ might be to compare and contrast NOAA’s Land-Only Temperature anomaly map with their Land & Ocean Temperature Percentiles map. Some study questions might be, What are the disparities, and why? What evidence of confirmation bias is there? What data has been ‘interpolated’ or simply excised, and why? But that would entail some hard thinking. Not nearly as entertaining as cutting class to march against ‘the enemy’.

    Apostatisingly yours…

    • Christopher C. Reed

      A heavily redacted version of this failed to make the cut at Projo.com. Wonder why they don’t expand the editorial space online…it’s not as if they’re going to run out of digits. Probably stuck in that newsprint-scarcity mindset. Print journalism…is that you I hear bellowing in the tar pits? Pity…

Quantcast