... including over 2,450
page views in the past
month.
And over 500
page views
yesterday,
which I can't
figure out.
( Maybe there was a rumor
that I had given up on
refuting climate nonsense,
and published photos of many
famous women in the nude?)
In April, I doubled
the number of articles
I used to post every week,
and readership increased
a lot.
That means more people
are considering that
wild guess, always wrong,
predictions of the future
climate are not real science.
In real science, predictions
have to be based on logical
theories, and the predictions
have to be right, otherwise
the theory is falsified.
Even then, there's always
a chance of a lucky guess.
In climate junk science,
you are judged only by
how scary your prediction is
and how much coverage it gets
in the mainstream media !
and how much coverage it gets
in the mainstream media !
I started reading
about climate science
as a hobby in 1997.
I wrote only two articles
about the subject, in 2007
and 2014, in my economics
/ finance newsletter
ECONOMIC LOGIC.
In 2014, I noticed
the climate change
predictions had morphed
into sort of a contest
for telling "scary
campfire stories".
I hate scientists lying to me,
and publishing wild guesses,
as if they are real science.
So, in 2014, I started this
climate science blog.
I doubled the
number of articles
per week in April 2019
because the climate
scaremongering
is getting worse
than ever,
is getting worse
than ever,
with the AOC
"Green Ordeal"
and the competing
Robert Francis
"hand waver"
O'Rourke plan.
The leftists have taken us
up to the top step
on the climate change
assumption ladder,
and cut off
all the lower rungs.
Their only interest now
is how many trillions of dollars
the US should spend to fight
"carbon pollution".
And you will be viciously
character attacked if you
just ask a question about
the (junk) science
underlying
the always wrong,
wild guesses of
the future climate.
CO2 scaremongering
is worse than ever !
That's obvious.
And it's scary.
I consider this blog
to be a public service,
fighting the climate
scaremongering
As an atheist since I was
old enough to understand
the word, I may have a unique
perspective on the climate
change "religion".
I see all religions as efforts
to control people through
imaginary threats, such
as going to "hell"
(many conventional religions),
or having Earth
turn into a hell
(the climate change religion)
... so you don't have to go
anywhere else to suffer
with the climate change religion?
with the climate change religion?
Sorry to offend any readers,
but this is all nonsense to me,
used by leaders to gain power
over the masses.
You probably would not be
happy if any one religion
was used to determine
public policies.
That's why I'm not happy
that the climate change
religion IS being used
to determine public policies.
The leaders of the climate
change religion are seeking
political power, under a strong
socialist government.
They really don't care
about pollution -- because
pollution in all Chinese and
Indian cities is completely
ignored, while they demonize
the non-pollution of CO2,
which is actually the staff
of life, 'greening' our planet.
I've been busy recently
writing my May - June 2019
ECONOMIC LOGIC newsletter,
so have been posting
fewer articles here,
in the first half of May,
compared with April.
The strangest thing about
what seems to be a climate
change "religion", is the
lack of real science.
"Climate Change"
consists almost
entirely of
scary wild guess
predictions
of a bad news
FUTURE climate,
that never shows up,
in spite of predictions
that started in 1957,
and ramped up rapidly
since the late 1980's.
I have no problem with the
assumption that CO2 could
cause some global warming.
I have a big problem with
evidence-free declarations
that CO2 'controls the
global average temperature',
and is then blamed for all
global warming, hot summers,
cold winters, bad storms,
and knee pain.
There's no real science to prove
how much warming CO2
causes in the atmosphere.
Only assumptions.
The global warming measured
after 1940, when CO2 emissions
became important, has been
quite mild -- about +0.6 degrees
C., over 78 years, using global
UAH weather satellite
measurements after 1979.
Note that surface temperature
measurements are far from
being global, so they require
lots of "estimates" ( wild guesses )
to fill in numbers needed to compile
a global average, for areas where
there are no thermometers,
or some data are missing.
+0.6 degrees C. in 78 years
is equivalent to +0.77 degrees C.
of global warming in 100 years
= totally harmless !
The growth of atmospheric CO2
since 1940 affected every
decade ... while the the post-1940
global warming was almost entirely
from 1975 to early 2003.
And the warming has not been even
across the globe, even though CO2
levels are similar everywhere.
Actual warming after 1975
has been mainly in places,
at at times, when warming
was desirable, mainly:
- Colder higher latitudes,
- During the six coldest months of the year,
- At night
You may wonder why you ONLY
hear about a single global average
temperature -- a temperature
that no actually one lives in ?
The obvious answer is that the
coming climate change crisis
fairy tales would be less scary
if details of actual past global
warming were given to the public,
by an honest mainstream media,
rather than only a global average.
I'm not a person who cares
about predictions -- they are
too often wrong.
And computer models only
predict what programmers
tell them to predict.
I do care that too many people
with science degrees are
getting attention and
government grants
and/or paychecks, for
making wild guess predictions
of a "coming climate catastrophe".
Right away, I saw a conflict
of interest -- scientists
predicting a "crisis"
were almost all
on government payrolls,
or getting government grants.
Making wrong predictions
didn't seem to be a problem
-- good enough for
goobermint work !
But those bureaucrats
with science degrees
would have lifetime
government job security,
if most people in the US
could be convinced that
a climate crisis was coming,
and scientists were needed
to study it.
No actual crisis would
have to show up --
the fear of a coming
climate crisis
was good enough
for their job security.
I get no money or fame
from thjis blog ...
but I do hope to get more
people thinking about why
leftists use obvious junk science
to scare people about a future
climate that they actually have
NO ability to predict.
I think the answer is obvious:
-- This is not about the climate.
-- This is not about real science.
-- This is about leftists getting
a lot more political power
over the private sector,
through more control
of their energy use.
-- This is the new way
to "sell" socialism
( Marxism, if you consider the Green New Deal ),
As a libertarian since 1973,
I favor less government and
more freedom -- one reason
I did not like Bush, Obama.
or Trump.
Refuting leftist climate
change scaremongering
is not work to me.
The coming climate
change crisis is a lie
-- a 60+ year old lie.
And I don't like
being lied to.
Richard Greene,
since 1953
Audiophile,
since 1965
Libertarian,
since 1973
BS,
State University of New York,
at Albany, 1975
MBA,
Stern School of Business,
at New York University, 1977
Editor of an
economics
and finance
newsletter,
since 1977
( named "ECONOMIC
LOGIC" since 1981 )
Married to
wonderful wife,
since 1983
Living in
Bingham Farms,
Michigan,
since 1987
Retired, lazy bum,
since January 2005
Editor of the
Economic Logic Blog,
since 2008
Editor of this
Honest Global
Warming Chart Blog,
since 2014
Editor of the
Election Circus
politics blog,
since 2016
Disappointed
that global warming
appears to have
skipped Michigan !
Does not speak French.
Favorite "philosophers":
- Lawrence "Yogi" Berra
- Groucho Marx
Favorite quote:
“Politics is the art
of looking for trouble,
finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly,
and applying the wrong remedies.”
Groucho Marx