Opinion: Climate threat overblown

June 27, 2014


People who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid known as global warming-climate change are not just “deniers”; we are guilty of a “nihilistic refusal” to address the issue. So says a Washington Post editorial commenting favorably on Monday’s Supreme Court ruling that allows the Environmental Protection Agency, under certain limits, to proceed under the Clean Air Act to regulate major sources of greenhouse-gas emissions.

The actual nihilists are those who refuse to accept any scientific information that undermines their claim that the globe is warming and humans are responsible for it. Cults are like that. Regardless of evidence contradicting their beliefs, cultists persist in blind faith.

Sometimes one must look to sources outside the U.S. to get a better perspective on what is happening.

The London Daily Telegraph’s Christopher Booker, author of “The Real Global Warming Disaster,” writes of climate change denier Steve Goddard’s U.S. blog Real Science, which he says shows “how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of U.S. surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).” Goddard, Booker adds, illustrates “how, in recent years, NOAA’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data.”

Goddard compared the most recently published graphs with “those based only on temperatures measured at the time.” He concludes: “The U.S. has actually been cooling since the ‘30s, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on ‘fabricated’ data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.”

If that isn’t a smoking gun, what is?

Last month, President Obama issued a proclamation for “National Hurricane Preparedness Week.” He said, “As the climate continues to warm, hurricane intensity and rainfall are projected to increase.”

Except many believe the climate is not continuing to warm (see above) and that there has been no significant warming for 17 years (see more at climatedepot.com). As for hurricanes, USA Today reported last month: “the nation is enjoying two record streaks for a lack of hurricanes: It’s been nine years since the last hit from a ‘major’ hurricane and also nine years since a hurricane of any sort hit Florida, traditionally the most hurricane-prone state in the nation.”

The global warmers are the ones refusing to discuss, debate or even mention the growing body of science questioning and in increasing instances disproving their theories. They also mostly ignore news of manipulated climate models and the serious concerns of scientists who no longer believe the climate is changing significantly.

This is about government gaining more control over the lives of its citizens. Already they are in our bathrooms, our cars, our light bulbs and so many other areas that have the cumulative effect of encroaching on our freedoms. Government is not the final arbiter of truth, yet the global-warming cultists worship at its shrine.

Polls show the public has far greater concerns. An April Gallup Poll affirms previous findings: “warming has generally ranked last among Americans’ environmental worries each time Gallup has measured them with this question over the years.”

So exactly who are the real nihilists and deniers?

— Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Content Agency.


Ken Lassman 3 years, 6 months ago

Cal proudly proclaims: "So exactly who are the real nihilists and deniers?"

Why, Cal, it's still you, of course. Ir's your Kool-Aid that is starting to get the bitter cyanide taste to it, and even many republicans are noticing that the longer they drink it, the worse they feel. Virtually all of them who are not absolute blowhards are shifting away from the outright denial that you're touting to at least saying that well, yes, it's happening but it's not us humans causing it. But there's also an increasing number of them who are realizing that this antiscientific stance is increasingly uncomfortable and have begun to look at actual ways to address the problem with things like free-market based solutions including the carbon fee and dividend program as a means to cut carbon emissions. That leaves you, Cal, increasingly exposed to the winds of the real data on climate change--you can come in from the cold any time you want, you know.

OK, if I need to, maybe I'll actually address the factoids and misleading information that Cal has thrown together in his party line defense of denialism in a comment below, but I just wanted to put this out there from the start.

Mike Ford 3 years, 6 months ago

Take Cal to Isle Du Jean St Charles in Louisiana or the coastal Inupiat villages in Alaska and make him stay there as the water rises and the land sinks and the ice melts. Nothing like reality to convert a conservative.

Paul Merrifield 3 years, 6 months ago

Do you have a climate blamer still fear mongering your children? Here is how to shut down a climate blame "believer";

*Canada and the USA have not had ANY smog whatsoever in close to ten years now because those "Alerts", "Advisories" "Watches" and "Be Kind to the Air Days" are not measurements of smog and are only "predictions" that a "Smog Warning Day" (real smog) "could be" issued within the next 36 hours and 10 years later…………………? Success! And we are still increasing longevity rates in an era when we are living longer now than at any time in our history as a species. Fear sells however.

*And you determined climate blame"believers" also eagerly ignore the fact that you "believe" "beyond science's laughable 32 years of nothing beyond; "could be" and "95%". But the scientists are 100% sure the planet is not flat and CO2 "could" flatten" it? If science can't be certain, nobody can.

*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.

*Canada killed Y2Kyoto 2 years ago with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit). What did YOU do about it planet lovers?

*Polar Bears were indigenous to as far south as Minnesota upon settlement but called the Yellow Bear because it retained its summer coat longer but still the same bear.

*Big oil doesn't feed denial but rather it's you "believers" who knowingly exaggerate science's laughable 95% certainty that THE END IS NEAR that continues to feed all denial. And all just because you hate neocons so much. Who's the neocon?

*So call three decades of "could be" anything you want except "sustainable" and if you misery loving "believers" really loved the planet you would be happy a crisis wasn't real for billions of children. Deny that.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 years, 6 months ago

Thank you Rush Limbaugh. We know that anything, and I mean ANYTHING that that this president advocates is opposed by the national socialist tea party Republicans.

Old "fuming Cal" is noted for his "conservative" hogwash, and this is yet another fine example. I probably won't be around then, but I wonder what he is going to say when the Atlantic Ocean is coming in the front door of his posh island retreat?

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 3 years, 6 months ago

Cap and trade were once conservatives answer to control emissions, just like the ACA plan was modeled after a conservatives plan, but then they turned against it. Wonder why?


Chris Golledge 3 years, 6 months ago

Cal is standing on the shore and the tide is coming in. He is standing in the trough of a wave and claiming the tide is not real, despite the fact that the trough of this wave is about as high as the peak of the last.

For the most part, the global warming tide is caused by CO2, and the waves are El Nino-La Nina.

It really does not matter which data set you look at.


Side note: When someone who knows math well says they manipulated data, they mean they used them in some formulas. Cal is trying to convince us they manipulated in the sense of trying to mislead. Cal is confused.

Chris Golledge 3 years, 6 months ago

Cap and trade has always struck me as a bit of a shell game. I lost money on one of those once, and decided not to play anymore.

Ken Lassman 3 years, 6 months ago

OK, let's look at the factoids and cherry picks:

Cal says: “Sometimes one must look to sources outside the U.S. to get a better perspective on what is happening.”

What a great idea, Cal, since later on in your piece you cite manipulation of the USA data as proof of some nefarious plot to skew the data so that it shows warming exists when it really doesn’t. Besides being incorrect, of course, the dataset Cal cites is of the US land surface temperature records only. Make a guess of how much of the planet’s surface area this represents: 30%? 20%? 10%? Try 1.9%. So perhaps the other 98.1% of the earth’s surface data has some relevance? And do you think that the oceans, which store 90% of the earth’s heat, have some relevance in this assessment? When we look at that data, here’s what we find in terms of increasing amount of heat building up:

The only other factoid that Mr. Thomas brings up is the hurricane frequency and intensity numbers, and once again, he only looks at how the 1.9% of the planet (i.e. the US) is affected. And guess what: the experts have never claimed any massive increase in the frequency of hurricanes either in the recent past or predicted for the future. So much for that straw dog, Cal. What they ARE saying is that there will be more rain, higher winds and more storm surge issues as the oceans continue to rise. In the IPCC Publication "Managing Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation" the following quote:

"Observed: Low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. Projected: Likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. Likely increase in average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed, although increases may not occur in all ocean basins. Heavy rainfalls associated with tropical cyclones are likely to increase. Projected sea level rise is expected to further compound tropical cyclone surge impacts."

(from: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX_Full_Report.pdf)

I suggest to anyone really interested to hear what science has to say about climate change, forget Cal and go to the following executive summary: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf The entire report can be downloaded for free from the same website.

3 years, 6 months ago

This is a text book case of paranoia. Cals' got it in spades. Text book. In spades. It just does not get any clearer. Amazing. Reagan let them loose & they really got momentum with George W. There is no question that the sun has been the weakest it's been in a Solar Maximum since the last mini ice age. There is no reason to think that this weakening will stop. The planet may well continue to cool like it has for the last 17 years. Climate change is not about high or low temps. Climate change is about weather systems and mans effect on them. That is all. Close your browser.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 6 months ago

, “Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine” documents roughly 40 climate denial and opposition organizations receiving Koch foundation grants in recent years, including:


Meanwhile some food for thought:

Human made pollution brings on global warming which brings on Climate Change. Makes sense and lots of it…. I'd say.

While global warming has been a concern for many many many many many many many decades some things are for certain:

  1. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions of humans polluting planet earth.

  2. Never before has there been billions upon billions of gasoline burning vehicles spewing pollution into the atmosphere.

  3. Never before has there been billions of homes demanding energy from polluting sources.

  4. Never before has there been billions of buildings demanding energy from polluting sources.

  5. Never before has there been billions of polluting energy generating sources.

  6. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of humans supporting the clearing of the rainforest for food products not knowing the long term impact of removing massive numbers of trees and medicinal plants.

  7. Never before has planet earth been expected to absorb tons and tons and tons and tons of pollution with human beings having no idea what the impact might be.

  8. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of human beings believing THEIR pollution is having zero impact ....... can we say ignorance is bliss.

  9. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of humans applying millions of gallons and or pounds of toxic chemicals to the landscapes.

  10. Air and water pollution are man made driven by ignorance that nature is invincible. All of us have been ignorant of this until some decided to learn that there may be a connection to the human wasteful lifestyles.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 3 years, 6 months ago

And yet people like Cal will tell you that humans have very little impact on the earth. People like him will deny that humans cause the dust storms in the 30's.

Chris Golledge 3 years, 6 months ago

Paul, Arrhenius figured out in 1896 that our CO2 emissions would warm the planet. That was well before warming was observed. Where did you get 32 years?

Chris Golledge 3 years, 6 months ago

Uncertainty. For you Star Trek fans, it's kind of like Spock saying, "This is my best guess." Spock's guesses were generally better than other people's absolute certainty.

Chris Golledge 3 years, 6 months ago

Here's a thought, maybe the LJWorld should refrain from publishing opinions claiming facts, where those facts are completely unsubstantiated. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but let's not present opinions as though they were facts Give us a break; the man's real name is not even Steven Goddard.


Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 3 years, 6 months ago

I agree. People are getting facts and opinions mixed up. If your opinions are based on facts that are unsubstantiated, then your opinion is really a lie. Much of what Cal says are lies. Of course, the courts have decided that it's ok for news sources to lie: it's ok to distort the news. Of course that is fancy way of saying "lie".

John Graham 3 years, 6 months ago

There is no such thing as an unsubstantiated fact. By definition a fact is a verified statement about something that is or has happened. One can have an unsubstantiated statement but that is not a fact.

Chris Golledge 3 years, 6 months ago

So, what you are saying is that Cal has no facts. OK

John Graham 3 years, 6 months ago

You are apparently mixed up. There are no such things as unsubstantiated facts. By definition a fact is a statement or assertion that has been verified. One can have unsubstantiated statements but those are not facts.

John Graham 3 years, 6 months ago

Apparently someone doesn't know what a fact is. There are no such things as unsubstantiated facts. By definition a fact is a verified statement or assertion. One can have unsubstantiated statements but those are not facts.

Larry Sturm 3 years, 6 months ago

Cal has been drinking too much Koch brothers kool aid Texas tea.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.