December 14th, 2019

Climate emergency hysteria


By Lethbridge Herald on August 1, 2019.

Mania persists

in spite of the facts

Lee Morrison

For almost 30 years, I have watched the alarming idea of human-induced global warming (AGW) evolve from an interesting scientific hypothesis to widely accepted, almost religious dogma. Following the circus of the global warming conference of 2010 in Cancun, I optimistically believed that the mania had reached its nadir. Unfortunately, I was wrong. After its Paris conference in 2015 the AGW cult issued an impressive statement that, although it lacked teeth, signified a common objective of its 195 signatories.

After three decades of relentless evangelism, AGW has been accepted as scientific fact by most of the media, Wikipedia, all Canadian political parties, several multi-national corporations and, shockingly, the executives of most scientific institutes and professional associations. In general, the poobahs of scientific organizations do not require consent of their members to make pronouncements. During my 30 years of professional practice I belonged to a half dozen associations and scientific institutes. I don’t recall ever having been polled on anything.

People generally join professional organizations for recognition of their qualifications, to receive technical bulletins and for contacts with their peers. Most are too busy working in their fields to spend much time worrying about the day-to-day policy decisions of those who speak for them. With western society being threatened with an apocalypse, perhaps the rank and file should be paying attention.

The myth that 97 per cent of scientists believe that evil humans are causing climate change has been thoroughly debunked but it has become a permanent part of warmist folklore. It has become professionally dangerous to question the idea that the Earth’s thermostat can be adjusted by public sacrifice and technological regression. Many skeptics have learned to keep their heads down because radical warmists tolerate no dissent, and non-conformists risk being branded as “kooks” or “tools of Big Oil.” Even safely tenured or retired academic giants, the Gretzkys and Howes of academia (eg. Z. Jaworowski, F. Lindzen, D. Bromwich, W. Gray et al.) have been mocked and denigrated.

Even the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), after having informed a prominent member that he would receive its prestigious Summit Award in 2019 in recognition of his contributions to the profession and the community, was informed by council that the offer was rescinded, presumably because of his harsh public personal criticism of climate hysteria and of greenism in general. Decades of outstanding service was trumped by failure to conform. We uns ain’t got no truck wif hairytiks.

Since 1880, there has been a net global temperature increase of about one degree centigrade but there isn’t a scintilla of confirmable evidence that this is due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, notwithstanding a fairly constant increase in CO2 concentration, average land and sea temperature has risen erratically. It has twice fallen in two periods totalling 63 years, risen quite sharply for 62 years in three periods and was essentially flat during a 14-year hiatus.

“Global climate” is an imaginary construct. Climate is a regional geographic phenomenon. For example, in North America the Arctic has warmed significantly but the Great Plains from Texas to about 53 degrees north latitude has experienced no recent climate change. There have been a few hot, dry years (not surprising in a semi-arid area) but nothing remotely comparable to the heat and drought of the 1930s dustbowl when hundreds of thousands of climate refugees left the prairies. The temperature hit 44.4°C at Emerson, Man. in 1936 and an all-time Canadian record of 45°C at Yellow Grass and Midale, Sask. in 1937. Conversely, the terrible winters of 1886-87, 1906-87 and 1946-47 have never been surpassed. It’s human nature to always think of current bad weather as the “worst ever.”

Readers afraid that Alberta may be overwhelmed by rising seas should take comfort in the knowledge that sea levels are increasing by about 2.5 mm annually. (That’s 10 inches per century.)

Canada’s widespread forest fires in 2016 to 2019 were not unprecedented. The great Miramichi fire of 1825 covered about 1,600,000 hectares, destroyed two towns and took at least 160 lives. In 1919, fires in Saskatchewan and Alberta scorched about 2,500,000 hectares. In Ontario from 1911 to 1922 major fires consumed 568,000 hectares of forest and caused 341 deaths. In 1950 the Chinchaga fire in northern B.C. and Alberta burned about 1,700,000 hectares. The disastrous 590,000-hectare Fort McMurray fire in 2016, although by far the most costly in Canadian history, wasn’t physically unique.

To all those who passively accept “climate emergency” dogma because “the science is settled,” I commend the words of Anatole France: “If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.” Or, more pointedly, Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180 CE) opined, “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”

Lee Morrison of Calgary is a retired mining geologist, engineer and a former Member of Parliament.

Share this story:

14

16 Responses to “Climate emergency hysteria”

  1. Seth Anthony says:

    But the tv told me if I pay money the temperature will change!

    Ralph Wiggum – (The Simpsons).

  2. Very thoughtful! A couple of points, perhaps worth quibbling over. Carbon dioxide does have some effect on radiative heat transfer, so perhaps there is a “scintilla” of evidence it could have some effect. Do,you think the one degree rise in temperature said to gave occurred is really significant? Temperature is difficult to measure consistently and the data seems scanty, as weather stations come and go and measurement standards and local influencing conditions are subject to modification.

    Certainly seems to be much ado over very little to date.

  3. IMO says:

    In yesterdays severe weather in the Edmonton area, one farmer reported that he received one foot of hail. This morning he reports that his fields sit under a frozen mass of hail stones.

    There are also flocks of geese scattered all over his fields. They are unable to fly after suffering significant damage in being knocked out of the sky by the hail storm.

    No doubt this farmer would be most interested in having Lee Morrison explain to him or her that this event was really only part of the “circus” associated with climate “mania”.

    And, do let the readers know, Lee Morrison, when you’ve had an audience at NASA and straightened out all of those climate folklorists!

    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

  4. Fescue says:

    All this inanity for the want of an elementary statistics course in his life.

    Unfortunately, these postmodern relativists fail to accept the authority of science for its rigorous demonstration, parsimonious explanation, empirical proof, verification procedures, and its community of practitioners dedicated to objectivity. For someone, who once drank deeply from the font of the Reform party, to suggest that science is a cult is wildly imaginative.

    Interestingly, the news today informs us that we are on track for the last five years of world-average temperatures (2015 to 2019) to be the highest in recorded history. I guess the scientists didn’t check the temperature in Wood Mountain on June 26th, 1947.

  5. h2ofield says:

    Whether you believe climate change/global warming or not, what’s wrong with the idea of polluting less? I thought the carbon levy was a good incentive for that. It was an interesting challenge…too bad.

    • Seth Anthony says:

      H2 said:

      Whether you believe climate change/global warming or not, what’s wrong with the idea of polluting less? I think the carbon levy was a good incentive for that. It was an interesting challenge…too bad.
      ———————————————————————

      Total agreement on your first statement. The name of the game isn’t Co2, but rather reducing our footprint and destruction towards the hand that feeds us. Such can only be mitigated, as life in of itself, requires destruction..

      Your second statement is too vague to be of any value.

      • h2ofield says:

        You would have to reply……I thought this forum was too ‘small potatoes’ for you?
        You had ‘bigger fish to fry’. and here I thought you just fixed cell phone screens.
        Btw, that’s not your real name, is it? You’re not the Seth on FB that looks like Vanilla Ice 1991?
        And you’re not the country bumpkin singer… maybe you’ll set me straight.

  6. grinandbearit says:

    I see that Lee Moronson forgot to include the evidence debunking the consensus of climate scientists confirming human-caused global warming. Perhaps he forgot, perhaps there is no evidence allowing for debunking. I am guessing this old fellow is blowing smoke.

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99

    https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-global-warming-consensus/

  7. sikorsky says:

    abdussamato.jaworowski,Mr. Gray Mr. Richard Lindzen study many years into this don’t matter?

  8. Dennis Bremner says:

    I think most of you have missed the Authors point. A point I have made here numerous times. If a Cult of Treehuggers were to take over the Planets logic what would that logic look like?

    Well first of all they would dismiss academics that disagreed with them. They would then go out of their way to ensure any dissenter would never get the time of day, nor receive any funding for what he believes which is the Opposite of the treehugging majority!

    In the end what a Planet of Treehugging Scientists would look like is what we now have. They will not tolerate descent, they will not allow anyone with a different view to speak and they will berate well respected scientists into obscurity.

    If these people actually felt their Science was true Science they would welcome dissenters and using the normal tools of Scientific Research evaluate/appreciate/ and encourage dissenting research

    So, the Author is saying, we have lost the Science behind Global Warming and I agree 100%. Not because I believe the results of dissenting research would necessarily defeat the popular view, but because without dissenting research we have the Treehugging Wild West Society instead of Science!

    Its very much like the SCS in the Drug world, we save people day after day watching them deteriorate and if you object…you get the WE ARE SAVING LIVES HERE!!! So even though that approach has failed for 25 years + the Drug nutbars get to dismiss any concerns it will be failing for another 25 just by saying WE ARE SAVING LIVES HERE!!!
    In both cases the Animals are running the Zoo, but thats the “were offended society of 2019” we now live in!

  9. biff says:

    well we know what the planet looks like when taken over by by a bunch of ignorant, greedy, self serving scum that are addicted to the farce that is accumulation of wealth and stuff. short cut, short change, and ultimately short circuit the balance of systems that would maintain a healthy planet for us. all this jabbering about big pharm fake opium addictions, and no concern over the far more pressing culprit and concern: the power and greed addicts and their effect on all life forms.

    • zulu1 says:

      All that filthy lucre. The absolutely awful profit motive, Imagine businesses that provide goods and services competing to bring consumers the best services at the lowest cost. It should be banned immediately, and we should be bartering one pig for 10 chickens and 5 dozen eggs.

  10. Dennis Bremner says:

    zulu1 you also miss the point. Lets suppose the argument against climate change discovered it was not CO2 or Methane or whatever, but it was Gas XYZ and had we stopped emitting XYZ in 2019 the earth would not be destructing in 2025…if we had only allowed Scientists to do their scientific work and be “graded” based on science then XYZ would have been stopped earlier.

    So its not whether we should be cleaning up the planet, because we should be, but it would be nice to have the science right, and the planet cleaned up and the offending gas XYZ gone.

    If we decide as a Scientific group that Left Hand turns on roadways kill 90% of the people and outlaw it. Then dismiss/berate/disallow any science that says that what that will do is create 3X the number of right hand turns and thereby increasing the rate of deaths of right hand turns to a point where they exceed the deaths in left turns, is that science ?

    • zulu1 says:

      I did not miss the point that biff was making. The essence of which is that capitalism is the real problem. This is a widely held point of view among environmentalists. IPCC officials have already admitted that the real objective is not climate change mitigation, but an end to capitalism.

  11. diplomacy works says:

    The hysteria is from people who want to convince us that environmentalists are in control of the world and heck bent on ruining capitalism.

    It’s remarkable the powerful have convinced many (almost all Albertans) that oil companies which routinely buy militias in many countries in which they operate, are less powerful than some millennials hanging from ropes over Vancouver bridges protesting more tanker traffic.

    And that is how we get decades of right wing Alberta politicians making money (for themselves) from a victim narrative.

    No one said the science is settled bu the majority of actual scientists do agree climate change and global warming are a threat to humanity. So sorry to tell you some of us want to do something about that.

  12. Steve Bottrell says:

    I don’t know, I’m not involved in that field of expertise. But it does seem to me that it is getting hotter out there. Hard to argue with a thermometer. And as to previous weather events from days gone by being just as bad, ok. But what was the year before that event like? The year after? The changes I’m noticing over the last decade or so have been pretty consistent year after year. I watched a documentary on the Greenland ice cores, and it pretty much settled the CO2 argument for me. The more CO2 in the air, the higher the temperature. Demonstrably laid out in an ice core.
    It seems logical to me, and I have wondered about it since I was a kid, since before I even knew anything about climate change. How can we pump so much crap into our air, and not expect some consequences?