Reminder: Experts Have Been Warning Us About Global Warming Since the 1930s

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

I will not pretend to be a scientist in this blog, or even claim to know the very first thing about global warming or lack thereof. I am more interested in human narratives, how they are woven, and the basis from which they were formed. Just like in stocks, when listening to an analyst, I like to know the historical performance of his/her previous picks.

Now that we have a vert active hurricane season again, all of the self-made climatologists are out shilling for their global agendas. It"s all very convenient, reminiscent of sudden calls for gun control following a mass murder.

Doing a cursory search of the NY Times archives, I found several articles warning Americans of the perils of global warming, several dating back to the early 1930s.

In the article below, dated May 15th, 1932, the NY Times cites scientific research that said the center of Greenland was ~9,000 ft thick and the edges ~4,000.

Today, according to a report out by experts...

...1,000m or 3,200 ft around the edges and 2,500m at the center or 8,200ft, roughly a 10% reduction from 75 years ago. Bear in mind, the instruments used to measure the thickness of the ice was rudimentary at best, back in 1932, so there must be some margin for error. Having said that, given the frantic panic, this is hardly a rate of change worthy of panic.

Here are some other articles from yesteryear.

Circa 1933, NY Times

Lastly, back in 1984, there were some skeptics -- those who called out the global warming panickers of the 1960s and instead claimed that that ice sheets were instead getting ticker.

EXPERTS QUESTION SEA-RISE THEORY
 
Specialists in polar ice caps have expressed doubts about a rise in sea level that has been predicted as a consequence of the expected warming of world climates.
 
Some experts, in fact, now suspect that the sea level may fall.
 
Two reports on probable climate change were issued last October, one by the National Academy of Sciences and the other by the Environmental Protection Agency. Both suggested there would be substantial rises in worldwide sea levels if, as suspected, there was a rise of several degrees in global temperatures.
 
Such a rise would be caused by the effects of carbon dioxide delivered to the atmosphere by steadily increasing combustion of fuels. That gas absorbs infrared heat radiation from the earth instead of allowing it to escape into space, acting somewhat like the glass in a greenhouse.
 
Scientists at the environmental agency suggested that heating of polar latitudes would melt enough ice to raise sea levels four to seven feet by the year 2100. The academy report said a less radical rise of two feet was ""likely"" in the next century, but added, ""More rapid rates could occur subsequently if the West Antarctic ice sheet should begin to disintegrate."" Forecasts Are Challenged
 
These predictions were challenged last week at the latest in a series of seminars on global habitability being held at Columbia University. It brought together Government and academic specialists to discuss the future of the Antarctic ice sheet.
 
In the past there have been far more ominous predictions regarding that ice sheet than those suggested in last October"s reports. In 1964 it was proposed that virtually the entire ice cap at the bottom of the world sometimes slips into the sea, raising global sea levels more than 200 feet, enough to flood many coastal lands and cities.
 
Such dramatic predictions fell out of fashion, and attention focused on the ice covering West Antarctica, that part of the continent south of the Americas. As pointed out at the Columbia seminar by Dr. George H. Denton of the University of Maine, an authority on the ice of West Antarctica, much of it rests on land thousands of feet below sea level.
 
Because such ice readily breaks off into icebergs it is thought to be more vulnerable to discharge than continental ice. Since it is a mile or more thick, its entry into the oceans would raise sea levels several feet.
 
It has been widely assumed that, between the last two ice ages, some 125,000 years ago, the climate was hotter than it is now and sea levels were 10 or 20 feet higher. Coral reefs formed in that period on some oceanic islands suggest such a high stand of the sea. These two lines of evidence were taken to mean that the West Antarctic ice dispersed into the oceans in that period. Past Assumptions Are Questioned
 
New evidence, however, questions both arguments, Dr. Denton said. While sea floor sediment in the North Atlantic suggests it was unusually warm there, it is beginning to appear the climate of the Southern Hemisphere was much like that of today. The coral reefs may be high, he added, not because the oceans were high but because the islands have risen.
 
Likewise the response to greater warmth is difficult to predict, Dr. Denton said. More moisture may be carried to the Antarctic hinterland, increasing snowfall there and the Antarctic ice ""may even expand,"" he said.
 
The Antarctica"s interior is so high and cold there is virtually no melting and some scientists believe there would not be much, even if the climate warms. The critical area is along the coasts, where ice discharges as icebergs.
 
As pointed out by Dr. Arnold Gordon of Columbia"s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, the behavior of the ocean along the coast may be a controlling influence. A change in oceanic circulation in response to warming of the atmosphere could, for example, alter the extent to which deep water wells upward along the rim of Antarctica and beneath its coastal ice shelves.
 
The two shelves through which most West Antarctic ice reaches the sea are considered keys to the fate of that region"s ice cover. They are the Ross Ice Shelf on the Pacific side and the Filchner and Ronne ice shelves facing the Weddell Sea on the Atlantic side. Each shelf is fed by broad ice streams flowing from the hinterland.
 
The shelves are thought to hold back the flow of ice and there has therefore been concern that they might be unstable. As stated by Dr. Robert H. Thomas, manager of the polar oceans program of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the conclusion seems ""unambiguous"" that, if the shelves go to sea, the ice of West Antarctica ""will collapse.""
 
The seaward edge of the shelves breaks off into icebergs. Should this process accelerate, specialists believe it could drain much of the ice from West Antarctica in a matter of centuries. Hence, in the last few years, there have been extensive studies of the ice cover.
 
Dr. Ian M. Whillans of the Institute of Polar Studies at Ohio State University said these studies had revealed no ""dramatic"" changes either in West Antarctica or on the Ross Ice Shelf. He cited various ""catastrophic hypothesis"" regarding that ice and added, ""Perhaps we should also consider the possibility that it is stable.""
 
There appeared to be a consensus that too little was known about the factors controlling growth and shrinkage of the ice sheet to predict its response to warming. ""The more ingredients you put into a cake,"" said Dr. Thomas, ""the more ambiguous it gets.""

 

I wonder what experts will be writing about 75 years hence.

New Climate Study Throws Wrench In Global Warming Debate: "Our New Technical Paper... Will Likely Be Ignored"

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

It’s not surprising that so many people believe the idea that global warming is being caused almost entirely by human activity, given the fact that most scientists seem to believe the same thing. But scientists should probably ask themselves why there is still such a large cohort of “deniers” as they like to call them, who are adamant that anthropogenic climate change is a scam.

The reason why is that the scientific community has been caught many times tampering with climate data and making outlandish claims. The celebrities and politicians who promote this cause have also been caught on many occasions, living in palatial mansions, flying across the world in private jets, and generally just living lives of excess that produce so much more carbon that the average person. Given these facts, how could anyone take the global warming arguments seriously?

What also doesn’t help their cause, is when reputable scientists question climate change dogma. Recently, two Australian scientists published a paper that explains why the shifts in global temperature that we see today, are likely entirely natural.

Jennifer Marohasy, a scientist with a rather long list of impressive credentials, which includes the founding of The Climate Modeling Laboratory, opens her startling climate report with a dose of reality.

“Our new technical paper … will likely be ignored,” she writes at The Spectator Australia.

She goes on to explain why, “Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.”

At the crux of their argument, is the fact that global temperatures were actually warmer during the middle ages, which used to be considered common knowledge for years, and is often denied by many climate change proponents today. These researchers confirmed that the world was indeed warmer before the industrial revolution. And that of course suggests that human activity doesn’t have nearly as much of an impact on the climate as most environmentalists claim.

Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while showing two rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the second peaks in 1980 and then shows decline...

There are, however, multiple lines of evidence indicating it was about a degree warmer across Europe during the MWP – corresponding with the 1200 AD rise in our Northern Hemisphere composite. In fact, there are oodles of published technical papers based on proxy records that provide a relatively warm temperature profile for this period.

Bottom line, don’t ever let anyone tell you that the climate change debate is over, and that the science on the matter is settled. Don’t let them fool you into thinking that there’s a strict consensus among scientists regarding global warming (and even if there was a 100% consensus, just because a lot of people believe something doesn’t mean it’s true).

The people promoting the theory of man-made global warming have been caught lying too many times for us to blindly follow them.

3 California Counties File Multi-Billion Dollar Lawsuits Against "Big Oil" Over Rising Sea Levels

Just when you think you"ve seen it all, the snowflake capital of the world finds new, creative and amazing ways to shock your system.  In it"s latest attempt to do just that, three California counties, two in the Bay Area and one in Southern California, have filed a lawsuit against 37 of the world’s biggest oil and coal companies alleging they"re ultimately responsible for the public"s usage of fossil fuels and the greenhouse gas emissions they create which will ultimately contribute to rising sea levels and lay waste to their cities...at least that seems to be the "logic" as far as we can tell.

According to The Chronicle, Marin County, San Mateo County and Imperial Beach (located in San Diego County) filed separate but nearly identical lawsuits in their respective Superior Court offices that seek to tie fossil fuel development to climate-related problems in coastal areas. Attorneys for the three counties worked together on their lawsuits and noted that their residents have already experienced more frequent flooding and beach erosion as well as the possibility that water will eventually inundate roads, airports, sewage treatment plants and other real estate.

Of course, we would love to know just how many polar bear-killing private flights these taxpayer-funded legal teams took back and forth between San Francisco and San Diego while drafting their highly practical lawsuit.

Moreover, wouldn"t it be more appropriate to sue the owners of the 27 million, give or take, vehicles registered in California, more than any other state by a very wide margin by the way, who are shamelessly destroying the planet by commuting back and forth to work each day?  Afterall, if there were no demand for fossil fuels then none of these companies would exist.

Of course, the lawyers contend that the oil companies knew about the damage their actions were causing, denied it and sought to discredit scientific findings that greenhouse gas emissions were heating the Earth’s atmosphere.

The suits are just the latest in a small but growing effort to hold Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell and other major energy companies accountable for the effects of climate change. Legal experts say the challenge is more comprehensive than previous endeavors, and is based on "better climate science" and more evidence to support a claim of conspiracy among oil company executives.

“This is a long-anticipated move in climate litigation,” said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. “You’ll find pieces of it in other cases, but bringing it together like this is different than what’s been done before. You can expect there will be a great deal of interest in how this litigation proceeds.”

“There’s tremendous concern for us as a county on how do we address these issues,” said Marin County Supervisor Kate Sears. “This case is about fairness and accountability and standing up for our residents and businesses.”

“We think we meet the elements of the public nuisance,” Beiers said, “but obviously we recognize this as the first lawsuit of its kind.”

So how much are these snowflake havens seeking in damages?  Well the exact cost of the total death and destruction that will ultimately befall America"s left coast has apparently not yet been calculated with any level of specificity but it"s at least $55 billion according to San Mateo and Marin counties. 

The two Bay Area counties and Imperial Beach are seeking reimbursement for current and future losses caused by climate change, as well as punitive damages. The suits don’t specify the value of losses so far, but estimate that the total will be in the billions of dollars over coming decades.

San Mateo County says the Bayshore Freeway, BART lines, San Francisco International Airport and $39 billion worth of assessed property are threatened by projected sea-level rise. Marin County counts $15.5 billion worth of North Bay real estate in harm’s way, along with ferry terminals, SMART rail tracks and Highway 101 and Interstate 580.

Of course, if you discount that $55 billion at 7%, the same rate the CalPERS uses to discount their pension obligations, for a period of 250 years to adjust for when the damages are actually expected to occur then the present value of the asserted damages is roughly $2,500.  Perhaps Exxon and Chevron should just split the cost and move on...

Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: "Not Reality... Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data"

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

As world leaders, namely in the European Union, attack President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have saddled Americans with billions upon billions of dollars in debt and economic losses, a new bombshell report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data produced by NASA, the NOAA and HADLEY proves the President was right on target with his refusal to be a part of the new initiative.

According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk:

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. (Full Abstract Report)

Of course, this won’t stop global climate normalcy deniers from saying it’s all one big conspiracy to destroy the earth. They’ll naturally argue that data adjustments to the temperatures need to be made for a variety of reasons, which is something the report doesn’t dispute. What it does show, however, is that these “adjustments” always prove to be to the upside. Always warmer, never cooler:

While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.

In short: The evidence has been falsified.

Karl Denninger sums it up succinctly:

It is therefore quite-clear that the data has been intentionally tampered with.

Since this has formed the basis for plans to steal literal trillions of dollars and has already resulted in the forced extraction of hundreds of billions in aggregate for motorists and industry this quite-clearly constitutes the largest economic fraud ever perpetrated in the world.

I call for the indictment and prosecution of every person and organization involved, asset-stripping all of them to their literal underwear.

The real data looks something like this:

(Via ZeroHedge.com)

And the establishment, along with their fanatical global warming myrmidons, continue to push the need for massive, costly initiatives to reduce green house gases and global temperatures to “normal” levels.

The problem, of course, is that there is no global warming according to the above referenced report.

Moreover, none of those supporting the Paris Climate Agreement and other initiatives have any idea what these behemoth regulations will actually do to curb climate change, as evidenced by the following video of Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine, who despite his best efforts, can’t seem to figure out exactly how these agreements actually lower temperatures and help Americans:

Studying The Climate Doesn't Make You An Expert On Economics And Politics

In response to the Trump administration"s announcement that it was pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, some of his critics declared that anyone who likes "science" would have supported the accord. 

Not surprisingly, Neil deGrasse Tyson rushed to declare that Trump supported the withdrawal because his administration "never learned what Science is or how and why it works."

But what does "Science" (which Tyson capitalizes for some reason) have to do with it? 

We know that Tyson is of the opinion that there is global warming. We also know that many other physical scientists agree with him. 

But, it does not follow logically that agreeing with Tyson on the matter of climate change must necessarily mean supporting the Paris Climate Agreement.

After all, the Paris Climate Agreement isn"t a scientific study. It"s a political document that lays out a specific public-policy agenda. 

Agreement or disagreement with the accord might hint at one"s opinions about climate science. Or it might not. One can agree that climate change exists and that human beings have a large role in the phenomenon. Agreement on this matter, however, does not dictate that one must also agree with the political policies outlined in the Paris document.

The two are totally independent phenomena. 

Science and Politics Are Not the Same Thing 

An analogy might help illustrate further:

Scientific inquiry tells us that obesity is bad for one"s health. Let"s imagine then, that in response to rising obesity rates, a large number of politicians gather and sign an agreement — let"s call it the London Obesity Avoidance Deal (LOAD). The supporting politicians claim that the deal will reduce obesity and that failure to abide by the agreement will spell a health crisis for humanity. 

Does this mean, then, that any politician who doesn"t sign onto the agreement is an "obesity denier"? Does a failure to approve of the agreement prove that the dissenters believe that obesity is not a real thing? 

Obviously not. 

Those who refuse to sign the agreement may be of the opinion that the LOAD does little to actually reduce obesity. Or, the dissenters may feel that the deal fails to properly compare costs and benefits when imposing its directives. Opponents may feel that "the cure is worse than the disease." 

In any case, dissent from the deal has nothing to do with denying the existence of obesity or the science behind the studies on the matter. 

The Problem with Paris 

The same is true of the Paris deal. Those who disagree with it may very well be — and probably are — taking issue with the specific provisions of the deal which may actually prove to be more costly to people than the presumed global warming itself. 

But, for physicists like Tyson — i.e., people who know nothing about economics or political institutions — public policy is like a magic trick. A group of politicians get together, declare that they"re going to solve problem X, and then problem X is magically solved, so long as everyone supports the "solution." 

But what if the policy prescriptions of the Paris politicians are wrong? Or, what if the cure is worse than the disease? 

Presumably, the agreement is supposed to improve the lives of real-world human beings by improving their standards of living. 

If this is true, then, the Paris agreement must accomplish several things: 

1. It must rely on good science about the climate.

 

2. It must accurately predict the effects of climate change on standards of living.

 

3. It must endorse public policies that will do something to mitigate the negative effects of climate change on standards of living.

 

4. It must demonstrate that these public policies will in fact mitigate the effects of climate change.

 

5. The agreement must demonstrate that the costs of the proposed public policies themselves are lower than the costs of the climate change. 

If the Paris agreement fails to do any of these things, it should be rejected. If the net effect of the agreement is to make people poorer, then the agreement is of no value. 

Now, without making any judgment about climate science itself, we can see just from looking at the Paris agreement that it could easily be rejected on the basis of numbers two, three, four, and five in our list.

After all, the agreement is based on policy predictions that are wildly speculative.They attempt to make predictions about the global economy decades in the future (a notoriously unreliable endeavor) and they fail to honestly take into account the true costs of imposing far-higher energy costs on most of the world"s poor and working classes — which is what the agreement would do. 

In fact, the agreement doesn"t even mention the cost to households that would face higher energy costs under the agreement. The only costs mentioned are the costs of adapting to climate change. In other words, the agreement assumes that there is no downside for households in the agreement"s provisions. That"s a huge red flag right there. 

Also ignored is the opportunity cost of adopting the agreement"s provisions. In real life, adoption of the agreement"s policy prescriptions will lessen growth by reducing access to basic energy resources. In addition to reducing household wealth, this will also reduce tax revenues. Money spent on higher energy costs is money that can"t be spent elsewhere — on things like health care, and research into better agricultural practices. Yet, at the same time, the agreement calls for massive redistribution of wealth and large amounts of government spending on various programs such as "emergency preparedness" and more government "insurance" to pay for the effects of natural disasters. 

Thus, the agreement calls for more spending, while reducing the ability of both the public and private sectors to engage in that spending. It"s a self-defeating endeavor. 

Other opportunity costs include the impact on the production of fresh water. As I noted in a 2015 article: 

A second major factor here in the necessity of energy is fresh water. The California drought has reminded us that fresh water is a scarce resource, even if the government likes to treat it as if it were not. But even as larger populations demand more water, fresh water can be produced through the use of energy via desalinization and pump-based aqueducts.

Today, most such schemes are still uneconomical because the problem of water scarcity can usually be solved through cheaper means such as importing food from wetter climates and through cheaper aqueduct systems that are primarily gravity-based.

In the future, however, as water does become more and more scarce as populations grow, the most practical answer will indeed become more energy-intensive solutions.

By centrally planning and artificially limiting energy usage, however, what the global warming lobby wants to do is raise the price of water processing, and by limiting the use of such methods, also inhibit technological progress by preventing practical experience in the use of water processing and fresh water production.

The Paris Climate Agreement supporters will no doubt retort that the provisions of the agreement will somehow amazingly prevent the need for more spending on clean water in the future by reducing global temperatures. Based on what evidence? Based on a computer model for what will happen decades from now?

With such flimsy evidence, it"s easy to see that it might be wiser to stick with policies we have now that are likely to produce a bird in hand — rather than the two birds in the bush merely promised by the Paris agreement. 

We already know we can help the poor now with cheap energy, more productive capacity, and a robust economy. The Paris agreement only promises to help hypothetical people in the future based on a theoretical and untried public policy regime. 

Many prudent people will elect to go with the former. 

Moreover, many of the global warming lobby"s own people deny that the Paris agreement does much of anything to reduce temperatures anyway. Thus, prudence would dictate a renewed interest in investing in technologies and poverty-relief measures (such as those that encourage more trade and capital investment) that we know will help the poor right now. Adopting policies that cripple our ability to invest in these measures — as the Paris agreement does — only makes matters worse. 

Nevertheless, in the imaginary world of physicists and climate scientists who can"t comprehend the complicated realities of economics and public policy, simply wishing something to be so makes it so. If we just wish really hard that all our problems are solved, surely the good people in government will make it happen.