This is a new one, coming from uber-Cult of Climastrology, and very far left, site Triple Pundit
Climate Change is Natural? And That Doesn’t Freak You Out?
In what now appears to be a regular habit, Gallup just surveyed a thousand-odd U.S. adults on their views on climate change. Overall, 49 percent of those surveyed attributed climate change to human activity while 46 percent blamed “natural†causes.
In a not-so-surprising but certainly fearful asymmetry, 72 percent of democrats but only 27 percent of republicans attributed climate change to human activity. Young adults: 61 percent human-caused, 38 percent natural; Older adults: 39 percent human-caused, 54 percent natural. This dichotomy in “beliefs†pervades other areas of scientific knowledge and splits states along political and demographic lines, as evident from the red-state-blue-state correlations in the maps above. (snip)
What I want to get at is this: If one indeed believes that climate change is natural, should that not be far scarier than if it were human-caused?
Perhaps if the Earth was heading back into a glacial age, but, a minor increase in global temperatures, less than during previous Holocene warm periods, is not particularly concerning. The article goes on to tell us about how doom-worthy this natural Hotcoldwetdry is, and why everyone who thinks it is mostly/solely natural should be freaking out, which leads to
As we sit here watching this natural climate change unfold, with glaciers melting everywhere and the arctic warming at twice the rate of the rest of the globe, there is no remedy, nothing to do and no other planet to take refuge in. The expected damage from droughts and floods and sea-level rise could devastate economies — particularly of already fragile nations — and send refugees scattering around the globe to safer ground. But if it is, as the climate scientists seem to suggest, just a matter of carbon in the atmosphere, there are ways — even at this late juncture — to fight this thing. Oil is not going to last forever anyway, and everybody hates the pollution from coal (just ask the Chinese). So it may, after all, be a good thing to innovate our way out of this climate problem. And is innovation not the lifeblood of the American economy? And here we have the opportunity to transform everything we do through brand new technologies!
So, it seems to me that meeting this natural climate variation that is heading our way with sanguine resignation locks us into economic stasis — frozen in place by the warming. I wonder what drives those who hold on to the “it’s natural†theory, the 70 percent of republicans and 54 percent of older Americans? It cannot be the fear that I feel at contemplating an unexplained, inexorable natural warming. Can it be fear of change?
So, even if it is mostly/solely natural, it still means we should spend enormous amounts of taxpayer money, increase taxation, put more and more people under the power of the central government. Why does every solution revolve around these?
As for fear of change, Republicans have been advocates for wise policies on developing alternatives that work, rather than flinging money to splatter against the wall like a monkey flinging poo in their enclosures. But, yes, we do fear quite a bit of what the Warmists are pushing, because it is about centralized authoritarian government, which will further degrade our lives.
always bewildered how solar panels on our roofs will make us slaves to big government (or big business)
“less than during other Holocene periods”
hmmmm seems to be a definite “lack of consensus” on that one
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.
For larger viewing version of the graph, please click here or on graph. Graph courtesy of Kerwin et al., 1999, complete scientific reference located here.
So Teach what do you think is causing our present record breaking high temps?
Can’t be what did cause those almost as high temps in the mid-Holocene can it ?
Saying that it was warmer then than now is typical monkeyshines from your Lord Monkeyton cherry picking facts to make an erroneous point
Except we clearly cannot provide any scientific proof other than we are retarded.
Last September I took an Alaskan cruise that toured Glacier Bay National Park. The official maps given out by the US Government that runs the park had all the glaciers named with marks showing where each glacier was at certain years. Almost every glacier there has been extending since 1965. The one or two that haven’t extended haven’t receded either. So glaciers are melting everywhere except Glacier bay right?
Ignorance and a slur in the same sentence! It’s a twofer. Sarah Palin would be delighted and then pissed off.
What specific scientific proof are you looking for? What would you consider to be proof?
John-“And know without a doubt that this proven astronomical climate forcing method can’t be responsible for the last 100 years of warming.” Total BS. When someone says without a doubt, especially in climate science, hang on to your wallets. There’s always a doubt, and even more so when we’re talking about climate thousands of years ago. “Saying it was warmer then than now is typical monkeyshines form your lord Monkeyton is cherry-picking facts to make a erroneous point.” It was warmer before, during the MWP for one example, and it isn’t because whoever said so rather it’s the conclusion they came from examine the data. John, as typical, shoots the messenger rather than the message.
“So what do you think is causing our record breaking high temps”? So what do you think of someone who continually says “record” as if it means something, when “the record” only constitutes 140 years out of 4 billion? So maybe the better question would be to ask why you think this is so out of the ordinary when we really don’t know what ordinary is, 140 year segment-wise?
well certainly it isn’t an ALL TIME record. But then again for the first 700 million years the temps were well over 2000 degrees and the surface of the Earth was molten lava. But most people pretty much ignore that
However we do have increasingly accurate human measurements over the last 150 years
And pretty good proxy temp measurements going back as far as 800000 years https://muchadoaboutclimate.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/4-5-billion-years-of-the-earths-temperature/
And yes as far as humans we are heading into unknown territory with temps
And on that graph I linked to? please note the slope at the right side. It is going UP
If you are in the top 1% income of all humans (about 40-50K per year) probably climate change will not hurt you too badly. But for say the bottom 10% 700 million well their life is already pretty precarious, change might be fatal
The 3 richest people on planet Earth own more than the bottom 10% 700 million Those are who will be at risk he most by climate change
you think that our orbit has changed significantly enough in the last 100 years to affect our climate? good luck finding proof of that !!
The Medieval Warm period was rather localized it definitely wasn’t a global phenomena it WAS warmer in the North Atlantic area but not in other areas
Yes it IS the data https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
here is another paper saying that it was probably a more localized warm period mainly North Atlantic but with some other spots warming and an equally large areas cooling at that timehttps://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204145919.htm