Highly scientific climate change of doom

The world is going to end soon unless drastic climate action is taken.

Well then, how soon?

In the year 2000 – oops that report is thirty years old.

In the year 2010 – oops that report is twenty years old

In the year 2020 – oops that report is ten years old.

It is definitely going to end the year 2030.

That is definitely right. All scientists agree. It is the scientific consensus, and if any scientists fail to agree, they will lose their jobs.
If you doubt it, you are anti intellectual and anti science.

How much did temperature actually rise in the past forty years?



0.4°C

Which looks indistinguishable from random variation well within the normal range.

Assuming that the change is real, rather than random variations similar to those that have been going on for centuries, it is not humanly perceptible.

How has temperature changed in the past?

In order to figure that out, need to use proxies, and since using one proxy for the present, and a different proxy for the past gives unlimited freedom to cherry pick results, have to use the same proxy for the present as the past.

In a multiproxy reconstruction, you are necessarily adding apples to oranges, and even if you are being honest, there is a lot of room to get whatever result you want. And the “trick to hide the decline” was very far from being honest.

Individual proxies never show a hockey stick, and seldom show the present warmer than the medieval climate optimum. But somehow, when you put a lot of non hockey stick proxies into the sausage maker, out comes a hockey stick. Or your paper will not pass peer review, and you lose your tenure.

The best proxies are those have high temporal resolution (as for example Law Dome) and that give continuous coverage from the distant past to near the present. Such proxies are usually ice cores. Ice cores have been taken from around the world, and they show nothing unusual about recent temperatures. It has been cooler, and it has been warmer. Temperatures have risen faster in the past, and temperatures have fallen fast in the past.

The best ice core is the Law Dome ice core, because of rapid ice formation and great depth of ice.

All the others show roughly similar results. Some show more warming, some show more cooling but none of them show unusual warming, and none of them show a hockey stick. They show the climate has always been changing, and oftimes, changing a lot more than it is changing now, and most of them show a medieval climate optimum far warmer than the present day.

56 Responses to “Highly scientific climate change of doom

  1. Brian says:

    So, what’s Al Gores play, then? Or is he just nuts.

    • jim says:

      > So, what’s Al Gores play, then?

      Priestly power In order that the sun shall continue to rise, human sacrifices are required, and the priesthood gets to decide who gets sacrificed and who does not.

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        Indeed. Don’t forget to bring gold and sinecures either.

        • jim says:

          The plan is nuts because:

          1. One degree of warming is not a problem

          2. The priesthood will not accept any solution that does not involve the destruction of western civilization.

          • Brian says:

            Got it, so inconvenience is a feature, not a bug. Is it possible that putting calcium carbonate in the stratosphere could kill people? Could we see a geoengineering project guided by people, who, for ideological reasons, believe the climate is warming more than it is cause us to experience a colder climate?

            Also: what’s your read on this Washington Post story using changes in the climate in parts of the United States, particularly as New Jersey, to cause readers concern about changes in the climate across broader areas? Are the observations about local climate accurate? Is it delusion?

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-america/?fbclid=IwAR3hZIgO8kG2y0oVMn2M-_9whrTI8tm9XkJdBy8kLkrVU97tjQYb1Nk25VE

            • jim says:

              We will not see any project to offset global warming that is not an attack on western civilization.

              There is always unusual weather somewhere. Remember the alarm about a permanent water shortage in California caused by global warming, shortly followed by alarm about a flood problem caused by global warming destroying damns. The dams were destroyed by the floods, and the farmers did suffer from the drought.

              That global warming is a delusion does not imply that the drought and the floods were delusions – just that there have always been drought, always been floods.

              The record in the ice shows that over the last fifteen hundred years there have been climate variations lasting decades, sometimes centuries, both local and global, far more severe than anything that we have seen in the last century.

              The hockey stick graphs are not lies because they falsify the recent past, but because they falsify the distant past. Which, if you add apples to oranges, is quite easy to do.

              Some past climate changes, such as the one that forced the Angles and Saxons to genocide the Britons, have been mighty nasty.

              Recent climate change has been benevolent. Leaf area has increased by seventy percent, the land area suitable for agriculture has massively increased, and lands that I walked when I was a lad, which when I was a lad were mostly bare ground with a few stunted shrubs and thin grasses, are now, when I recently walked them, covered in grass and young forests. The recent climate change has mostly been longer growing seasons in lands that used to be ice and snow, and more rain in areas that used to be semi desert. Low lying islands are getting larger. If the world is warming, it is mostly warming in winter in places with far too much ice and snow.

              • Brian says:

                So when do we see large numbers of people killed and large parts of civilization dismantled? How long do we have to head off this trend before this holiness spiral passes the point of no return?

    • The Cominator says:

      Al Gore with his political career over made a lot of money (and emitted lots of carbon from his private. jet) spreading “non-profit”unscientific alarmist bullshit about climate. I should say its the Cathedral’s equivalent of the Aztec myth. Aztec’s believed they had to mass murder people to avoid the apocalypse due to sun and climate… The Cathedral climate myth is really similar if you break down the policy implications.

      • jim says:

        The policy implications being that if priests demand the murder of lots of people, they get lots of power, if they demand the dismantling of the industrial civilization that is needed to support the current population, they get lots of power.

    • TBeholder says:

      Control over enforced “carbon indulgencies” is power of life and death vs. powerplants, most industry and a good chunk of agriculture, i.e. directly or indirectly everything.
      But they got hasty and added overt Holdrenism, though it would be mostly superfluous.

    • Energy is our civilization and our civilization is energy. GW hysteria is a demand that total control of our civilization is transferred to scientists, hence why the actual bureaucratic priesthood currently in place is hesitant to follow through with the apocalyptic predictions of its radicals, and why the radicals keep screaming louder and louder.

      The sociology professor thinks that if the climate scientist is raised to omnipotent heirophant, then she gets to kill whites and steal their stuff under the guise of “sustainability”.

  2. Anonymous says:

    https://archive.is/S5kU6

    UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

    Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

    He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

    As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

    Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

    Hilarious.

    • Anonymous 3 says:

      Let’s see if Bangladesh can build and maintain a 3-foot embankment.

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        That should, of course, be ‘Anonymous 2’.

        The population of Bangladesh in 1955: 44 million. In 2019: 168 million.
        The population of Egypt in 1955: 23 million. In 2019: 101 million.

        Both countries have roughly quadrupled their population in 50 years.

    • c matt says:

      if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

      To be fair, it does not necessarily claim the countries would disappear in 2000, but that if the trend is not reversed by 2000, they could disappear at some undetermined time. In other words, it claims 2000 as the “point of no return,” but not necessarily the date the effects materialize.

      • jim says:

        So when are the effects going to materialize: Sea levels are rising by three millimeters a year, temperature is rising by one degree centigrade per century – I experience climate change of more than a degree any time I drive a substantial distance and hang out in a new location, which I do all the time. Pacific Islands and low lying countries are growing, not shrinking.

        Climate change is insignificant this century, while there are many past centuries when it has been alarmingly dramatic. The world has become dramatically greener, largely because CO2 has recovered from unusually low levels, during which plants were stunted for desperate lack of CO2.

        • Reziac says:

          Patrick Moore (the former Greenpeace dude) points out that absent the industrial revolution putting much-needed CO2 back into the atmosphere, at the natural rate of CO2 decline all life on Earth would have ended in about 1.6 million years. Green plants (which along with coral have only themselves to blame for sucking all the historical CO2 out of the air) suffer badly at the former 200ppm, begin dying at 194ppm, and are all dead at 160ppm. As is everything else, other than anaerobic bacteria.

          He also points out that if we really want to save the Earth, we should be burning a lot more limestone, to desequester CO2.

          Occurs to me that the reason some coral reefs have declined may be nothing to do with ‘climate change’ or pollution or any of the other usual blamees, but rather, CO2 starvation inhibiting formation of their calcium carbonate shells. Stuff that uses a lot of CO2 evolved when levels were +8000ppm.

      • Not Tom says:

        Splitting hairs. The tell isn’t that the prediction was wrong or misinterpreted, the tell is that the predictions keep changing without any reasonable explanation.

        It doesn’t matter if the world was going to end in 2000, then in 2010, and now in 2020, or if it was merely the “point of no return” that was going to be in 2000, then 2010, and now 2020. It’s the need for constant revision that eviscerates credibility.

      • TBeholder says:

        The usual weasel phrasing, yes.
        Still allows the question of whether trend was reversed before “it goes beyond human control” or not.
        If yes, then what are they about? Everyone can exhale in relief. :]
        If not, it “gone beyond human control” anyway, so no point to run in circles trying to catch cow farts.

  3. Bruce says:

    Have as many blond haired kids as you can, eat meat, etc. Fuck ’em.

  4. simplyconnected says:

    It’s early Christmas, three posts in four days!

  5. FrankNorman says:

    A point I’d like to raise. Jim’s model of human politics assumes a binary of Priests and Warriors – which certainly fits much of what went on in the Middle Ages, for example.
    But those aren’t the only groups in society. I would argue that to a greater extent, the world is now ruled by Merchants. Big corporations, the banks, and so on.

    Of course if having a bunch of would-be “priests” shouting for a thing suits the merchants – why, then they will get themselves all the priestly-class virtue-signalling that money can buy. But he who pays the piper calls the tune.
    Buying the warrior class might be harder, but not impossible.

    But as long as money can buy political power, and political power can be used to gain more money, every government will in fact slowly turn into a plutocracy.

    And in addition to Kings, Bishops and Bankers, there are probably other classes of player on the board.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Explain Star Wars and Gilette.

      • FrankNorman says:

        Tbe Gilette advert (we all know which one) was either a seriously misinformed appeal to a supposed target market, or a case of a company being infiltrated and taken over by SJW types. The “woke” make poor merchants, precisely because they only know how to be “priests”.

        The smart companies don’t let that happen.

    • jim says:

      Soy wars tells us that merchants are underneath priests. Obviously the priests, not the merchants, are calling the tune.

    • alf says:

      We’ve had this discussion, multiple times over. Merchants cannot rule because they lack cohesion. Marxists say merchants rule because merchants in fact are a juicy target to rob.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        Merchants cannot rule because they lack cohesion.

        The techniques that the woke use against corps in the more traditional sectors and how the merchant class reacts give examples of this. Any bank could stop making money losing loans and if merchants could cohere then you can easily enforce a norm of “don’t make bad loans” – this is something that on the surface is beneficial to all the actors involved. Instead what happens is that they all act as individuals and say “well, the cost to *me* of fighting the lawfare is higher than the cost of the bad loans so screw it”.

        Insurance companies don’t make it a policy of fighting bogus lawsuits against their auto insurance customers – they simply pay off – but they do fight every medical malpractice lawsuit because *doctors* (being more priestly and acting as priests) can and do cohere.

        More generally, the woke are parasites and would starve much faster than the host if the merchants made it a policy to impose maximum costs on the woke – that would make them weaker for future extortion and is a cooperate / cooperate equilibrium for the merchant / merchant game. Instead they’re stuck in defect / defect. No cohesion.

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      The struggle *at the top* is between Priests and Warriors. This does not mean there are no other classes. What it does mean is that, given the undeniable fact that human groups are social hierarchies, who leads and how is the most critical question in both Politics and politics.

      • jim says:

        And who leads is the priesthood.

      • Not Tom says:

        Part of the confusion may be that large and powerful corporations are not controlled by merchants, they are controlled by priests.

        When Google, Facebook and Twitter all band together to “combat fake news”, they are not speaking as merchants, they are speaking as priests. When every tech company bans Alex Jones at the same time, that is obviously a priesthood. When Disney gets woke and kills both Marvel and Star Wars, that’s priestly action. Merchants do not collude, they compete, and on rare occasions when they do collude, it’s always in a way that increases collective profits. That’s really kind of the definition of a merchant. If they burn their profits in order to push ideology, then not really a merchant.

        The real binary thinking is that if you work in the corporate sector, you’re a merchant. When society is overproducing priests, they go into every sector, including corporate.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          And as they infiltrate those sectors, there is a natural push to conform their environment to their skillset/perspective, another indicator that they are neither warriors nor merchants, as these classes are strong precisely because they can conform to unknown and/or challenging environments.

          Another perspective of this that has been in the back of my mind is geography of the body and the mind. I could be off on this, but it appears to me that Priests Rule Home, Warriors Rule Frontier, and Merchants Connect Home to Frontier. This is obviously a layer of complexity added to the “simple” Priest v. Warrior construct, best applied to Western meta- and mid-colonial stages, and may map to the East Asian dynastic empires as well.

        • The Cominator says:

          Priesthood is a useful archetype but lets not overuse it, google and facebook (I’m not sure about twitter) started off with genuine capitalists (Zuck might be a bad guy but he is a merchant-capitalist and not a priest) they were eventually persuaded (in the case of facebook very much coerced because Zuck did not want to go along with it and he resisted for a time) to go along with the Cathedral “Gleichschaltung” of social media, the command and control of which belongs to the intelligence agencies.

          The recent Epstein interview is fascinating along these lines, Epstein implied a lot of Silicon Valley bigshots fell into his honeytrap or similar honeytraps. Zuck maybe did not and that is why he resisted but they employed alternative forms of persuasion and eventually he went along with it.

          • Not Tom says:

            There was a reason I used the specific word “controlled”, and not “owned” or “operated”.

            Whether the founders became priests themselves (old media), yielded direct control to priests (Google, Twitter) or are merely cucked and under the thumb of priests (Facebook, Disney), doesn’t make a ton of difference toward outcomes, and in all cases means priests are in control.

            I am not saying every tech CEO is a priest, although I believe most are. I am saying that in some fashion, priests run the show, whether it is directly, through boards of directors, through shareholder and employee activism, through media activism and boycotts, or just plain old lawsuits. Advertising in particular is an exploitable weakness, and most companies that depend substantially on advertising either already are or will soon become converged.

            • The Cominator says:

              Def not the shareholders recall how top Time Warner shareholders wanted Jeff Zucker of CNN out.

          • jim says:

            Vox Day sees what I see:

            I note that it’s been nearly 20 months and Ms Tiku is still trying to establish the Narrative and falsely portray the Google freaks who have been bullying everyone inside the company, from the CEO on down to the lowliest crypto-conservative, as the victims.

            Vox Day sees the CEO of Google bullied by the priesthood, and I see the CEO of Google bullied by the priesthood.

            And, in a similar incident when my boss was discussing with me a lecherous and immoral woman who regularly claimed to be the oppressed victim of sexual harassment, I recollect him walking on eggshells, and talking in code and body language, as if spies from HR had their ears to his office keyhole, as they probably did, and might rat him out to the government, as they probably would.

    • Marxist bullshit. There were periods in history where merchants were fairly close to ruling, think British East India Company, Dutch East India Company, or Phoenician cultures from Tyros to Carthage. I would rather not nitpick whether in such https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalassocracy merchants were ruling or not because according to Jim they are incapable of ruling, they were certainly close to power. Far closer to anywhere they are today.

      And if you compare those to the modern west, they are not even similar. To give you one example, there are private military companies like Blackwater, but they are used by the government only. They are basically just a creative accounting method of the Pentagon. Do you see true mercenaries now who would fight for merchant houses, corporations, to put down their competitors? Do you see merchants having primate armies? Do you see that Cyberpunk stuff where corporations have extraterritoriality and send special forces troops to kidnap key researchers from their competitors? Do you see corporations minting private money? They are still trying to play catch-up to the non-corporate blockchain projects.

      If corporations ruled, and if they wanted to get Iraq’s oil, cheaply, in 2003, the simple way would have been to make the government lift the embargo. Lift the embargo but fix prices low and/or let them only sell to a cartel with monopsony buying power. The whole war thing would not have been necessary. Saddam would have been happy to sell at any price, better than not being allowed to sell.

      If corporations ruled, their ideology would be taught at schools. Half of the social science department would be a Friedmanian econ department. High school history class would be full of the historic examples of harmful economic intervention. School kids would learn more about Jesse Livermore than about Lincoln.

      • The Cominator says:

        The aristocratic warrior merchant lords of Venice and the on the ground (not the board back in London) pirate/warrior merchants of the East India company were not pure merchants they had warrior like attributes.

        So any merchant led country will tend to have those merchants be very warlike and most of those merchants will have led men in battle at some point. True with Venice, true with Holland in its heyday, true with the “John Company”.

        “If corporations ruled, their ideology would be taught at schools. Half of the social science department would be a Friedmanian econ department. High school history class would be full of the historic examples of harmful economic intervention. School kids would learn more about Jesse Livermore than about Lincoln.”

        Yes on the first two parts but no on the last, they’d want most people to remain ignorant of good investing strategy.

        • Good point. At the danger of sounding dorky, warrior/merchant dual-classing exists. So does priest/merchant dual-classing.

          Much of our elite is like that. The “beige oligarchy” often comes from families who own businesses or even if they work at the government they dine with former classmates who work at corporations.

          So they do not *consciously* want to destroy capitalism. They are not really like edgy /r/fullcommunism. They tend to believe or at least try hard to believe that poz values and good biz can go hand in hand. Such as: give welfare to the poor, generate demand for goods and jobs. Welfare is all about retraining workers to be more useful in a changing marketplace. State healthcare provides businesses with a healthy, more productive workforce. One dude seriously expounded to me that software firms hiring yet untapped talent in women and minorities is going to have a competitive edge. This double-think absolutely abounds in the “beige oligarchy”. The “beige oligarchy” is not really a bunch of hippies or radical commies. They were at 21 at the uni, but not at 35. They think they’ve “grown up”. They are dual-class priest/merchants.

          (The term “beige oligarchy” comes from Charles Stross. The kind of suave apparatchiks who would be both at home at a job in the EU bureaucracy (or Washington) or at Proctor & Gamble. The lingo is similar enough.)

          • Steve Johnson says:

            That the same people are at home in P&G and in the EU or USG bureaucracy isn’t a sign that priest/merchants exist – it’s a sign that these places are run by priests.

            Merchants seek to make money, priests seek to signal holiness and the way to signal holiness when you’re in a position with authority in a corporation is to conspicuously lose money in the name of a holy cause. Those are flatly incompatible goals.

            • “Merchants seek to make money, priests seek to signal holiness”

              Dual-classing means they signal they want both. Look at “startup culture”. “Change the world generate ROI” of course the later part is a lie. I would also take “priests LARPing merchants”. This stuff is obviously not honest.

              But LARPing and dual-classing lies on the same continuum because even pure classes are not honest. When normal folks go on a job interview they say shit like looking for a new challenge.

              • Jehu says:

                Honest merchants in today’s society generally at least offer pinches of incense to the priesthood to avoid drawing the Eye of Soros. The problem is that their enterprises get infected with priestly rot through the HR vector and eventually they cease to be even honest merchants trying to avoid the Eye but agents of said Eye.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Personnel is policy – they get infected because they have an auto-immune disorder (to continue the metaphor). The early stages of the infection are the priests covering for each other – they make it the highest offense to fire someone for priestliness. Once they reach critical mass, the next stage of the infection proceeds where they start fighting internal battles.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                “Infiltration” describes that strategy much better than “dual classing”.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Nah I like “dual classing” infiltration was not what happened with Venice, Holland or the John Company.

  6. lol says:

    congrats on being the dumbest piece of shit alive

  7. Anonymous 2 says:

    Since the future of the nuclear stockpile is an occasional topic here: (The surrounding article is mostly about supercomputers.)

    The big issue, as Goldstein explained, is that the nuclear weapons stockpile doesn’t just need to be tested in simulation, but because these devices are well beyond their sell-by date, they need to be remade. This is a much, much bigger problem when you can’t actually test the design as you go along. …

    “Now, we face fresh challenges as our systems age to the point where virtually every component of both warhead and delivery system must be redesigned and remanufactured to maintain the same deterrent capabilities that we had in 1992,”

    https://www.nextplatform.com/2019/08/13/cray-runs-the-exascale-table-in-the-united-states/

    • jim says:

      As time goes by, it frequently happens that stuff rolling off the assembly lines just stops working, often for reasons that no one understands, and sometimes no one knows how to fix – it is the hardware equivalent of bitrot.

      Thus, you really have to test things.

      Nukes have not been tested in a very long time. They were never built to last, and the generation that knew how to build and maintain them has passed away.

      And,if we cannot make tritium, and cannot make plutonium 238, and our top of the line fighters are getting slower, shorter ranged, and lower flying, and our best aircraft cannons are museum pieces, I doubt our nukes are still working.

  8. Zach says:

    John C. Wright – Sci-Fi author sounds like Jim with regard to warmism:

    The Green New Deal, like the Rain Dance, names the problem of the angry sun monster allegedly warming the world as being caused by a lack of totalitarian control over all wages, prices and working conditions. Once a hundred million more innocent lives are sacrificed in bloody purges and orchestrated famines, so the Green New Deal assures us, the anger of the sun monster will be appeased, and the burning of the world in twelve years will be avoided.

    The whole thing is pretty fun:
    http://www.scifiwright.com/2019/08/a-new-political-spectrum/#more-23857

  9. […] then there’s how the !SCIENCE! is all settled. Is there a single scientific mind in academia that doesn’t know this stuff is all wrong as […]

  10. polysci says:

    The purpose of falsificationism, by the same guy who unironically wrote that the tolerant can’t tolerate the untolerant, is to conflate with discarded science the pseudoscientific historical philosophy of political science. Discarded science is still science, but pseudoscience is heresy and blasphemy.

Leave a Reply