Think Climate Change Is a Hoax? Try Betting on It
Last week’s post on climate change stirred up a storm of reactions. I expected it. That’s what happens when you decide to cut through the noise and speak the uncomfortable truth—that the science on climate change is settled.
What does settled science mean?
“Settled science” means the scientific community has reached a consensus.
Those who dispute the consensus are way off the mark. Sure, in any field of science, you’re going to find a few experts who disagree—it’s part of how things work. But the science is solid, and the overwhelming majority backs it up.
After years of hard data and rigorous research, the old explanations just don’t hold up anymore. The facts demand a new paradigm—one that actually fits the reality we’re facing and its consequences.
Figure 1 illustrates how scientific paradigms evolve. It’s known as the Kuhn Cycle after Thomas Kuhn, who explained it in 1962 in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Scientists stick to the existing paradigm until enough anomalies start showing up—data that doesn’t quite fit the model—causing what Kuhn called model drift. Over time, the anomalies increase and push the model into crisis. That’s when everything gets questioned. Eventually, someone makes a breakthrough, and a new paradigm takes shape. This always leads to a fight between those clinging to the old view and the ones embracing the new. But as the evidence becomes overwhelming, consensus forms around the new paradigm.
That’s when we say the science is settled. It doesn’t mean the final word has been spoken or that everything is understood—it just means the new paradigm explains things quite well for now—until new anomalies crop up and the cycle starts again.
Most of the time, people don’t care much about paradigm shifts in science. They’re just happy to enjoy the new technology or understanding that comes out of them. AI is a perfect example—there’s some debate about whether it’s truly intelligent or if it’ll take over our lives, but most folks are just fine using it and not doubting that it’s useful.
Climate change is a different story. This paradigm shift isn’t something people can just admire and move on from—it threatens the way we live.
The new climate change paradigm says we’re harming the planet—and ourselves—in ways we don’t want to admit. It tells us we might need to overhaul how we use energy and spend a fortune fixing the damage we’ve already done.
That forces people to face the uncomfortable reality that much of what they believed, and based their lives around, was wrong. That’s a hard pill to swallow. It’s easier to cling to comforting illusions than to accept the truth and make real changes. Denial is always the path of least resistance. We look for reasons to convince ourselves it can’t be true.
Unsettled Thinking
One of the main pushbacks I got on last week’s post was the claim that CO2 isn’t driving temperature increases—that it’s the other way around, with rising temperatures supposedly causing more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Here’s what one reader wrote.
“The correlation between CO2 and temperature is not very clear either – sometimes they move together and sometimes they move in opposite directions. Temperature mostly seems to lead CO2.”
First of all, let’s look at the data.
The correlation between rising temperature and CO2 levels is really obvious (Figure 2). If the Earth were warming naturally, solar activity would have to be ramping up, but that hasn’t been the case. In fact, solar activity has slightly decreased over the period of the chart, which should be cooling the planet, not warming it. So, we can’t pin the current warming trend on the sun.
Large, sustained volcanic eruptions have released significant amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases over long periods in Earth’s distant past, contributing to natural warming. But in the last century, volcanic activity hasn’t been out of the ordinary. In fact, over shorter timeframes, eruptions usually have a cooling effect by producing aerosols that reflect sunlight away from the Earth.
Someone else made this observation.
“A bunch of paid off scientists claiming it is true does not make it so. I’m proud to be one of those ‘conservative White guys’ according to your other reader here that can see through the nonsense.
People who claim that scientists pushed climate change to secure funding have no clue how science really works. Look, funding has always played a role, but it’s no different now than it was when scientists were developing the very technologies these same critics hold up as examples of American exceptionalism.
Why isn’t anyone accusing semiconductor and microelectronics research of being a scam driven by greedy professors looking for grant money? The GPS we all rely on in our phones and cars came from academic research. So did the internet, AI, and machine learning.
You can’t have it both ways. Either university research is a cornerstone of progress and improving our lives or it isn’t. It’s the same process that gave us electricity and the internet that now tells us that climate change is a big problem.
The truth is, scientists resisted the new climate paradigm just as hard, if not harder, than the public is resisting it now. Paradigm shifts don’t happen because people want them—they happen because the data makes them unavoidable.
Another reader left this comment.
“If you could only offer genuine proof that it was hotter.”
It’s important to acknowledge that some people who read my posts and even take the time to leave comments genuinely don’t seem to know whether global temperatures are rising. I don’t think it’s about ignorance—it’s more about the noise out there made by climate-change grifters.
Figure 3 makes it clear: global temperatures are at their highest point in the last 11,000 years. In 2020, the average temperature was roughly 30% higher than pre-Industrial levels. That’s not just a statistic—it’s a sign of a world that’s changing faster than we ever thought possible.
Here’s what another reader said.
“I live in the tropics near Cairns in Australia and I have not noticed any drastic change in our weather pattern over 40 years or an increase in cyclones.”
Anecdotal impressions about the weather don’t cut it when we’re talking about climate change. Weather is what happens day-to-day, but climate is the longer-term pattern. Just because you had a cold winter last year or a mild summer doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real. It’s like saying the stock market isn’t going up because your stocks had a bad week—it ignores the broader trend.
When people claim global warming is a hoax because it’s been colder than usual where they live, they’re missing the bigger picture. They’re caught in the trap of thinking that climate change is just about the world getting hotter.
What they don’t realize is that it’s about more than just rising temperatures—it’s about increasing instability in weather patterns. Climate change means extremes in both directions: heavier rains, cooler spells, and flooding in some places, while others suffer from drought and deadly heat. It’s the unpredictability and extremes that define the problem, not just the temperature.
Then, there is this comment.
“I’ve been visiting North Padre Island since I was a child and the sea levels have not risen. I’ve been reading this doomsday rubbish on CO2 for over half my life, and none of it has transpired. The AGW has used lies and falsified data to make a phony case for CO2 causing all these alleged problems.”
Saying that sea levels haven’t risen because you’ve been visiting North Padre Island since childhood is like saying smoking doesn’t cause cancer because your grandfather smoked and lived to 90. It’s a narrow, personal view that ignores the overwhelming body of evidence.
Sea levels are rising globally, and the data is clear on that—over 8 inches in the last century, with the rate accelerating in recent decades. Just because you haven’t noticed it on one stretch of beach doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
Take your Bet Against Climate Change to Las Vegas
What really matters is data. When it comes to climate change, the data is clear, and it’s backed by decades of research from thousands of scientists across the globe.
People resist the climate change narrative because it’s uncomfortable. It challenges the way we’ve lived, and it asks us to confront the fact that we might be doing more harm than good. I get it. Paradigm shifts are hard—no one wants to accept that their worldview might be outdated. But pretending climate change isn’t happening because it doesn’t fit with your personal experience is just willful ignorance.
Global temperatures are rising, CO2 levels are higher than they’ve been since civilization began, and the consequences are playing out all around us. It’s not just about warmer weather—it’s about a destabilized climate that brings extremes in all directions. Denying it because it doesn’t fit your local observations is like ignoring a hurricane because your town hasn’t been hit yet. The storm is still coming.
We need to stop cherry-picking data and start facing the facts. The same process of scientific discovery that brought us the internet, GPS, and AI is the one telling us climate change is real. We didn’t question the science when it gave us the technologies we love, so why question it now when it’s sounding the alarm?
The science is settled, at least within the paradigm concept that I’ve explained. That doesn’t mean we have all the answers or that there aren’t still some things we can’t fully explain. But the link between carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels and rising temperatures is solid. Even if you’re skeptical and think there’s only a 50% chance it’s true, it’s still the most credible way to understand what’s happening.
Think about it like this: most of us don’t expect our house to burn down tomorrow, but we still buy insurance. We’re not betting on disaster, but we’re smart enough to prepare for it. Climate change is no different. The risks are real, and waiting for absolute certainty before acting is like waiting for the flames before getting fire insurance.
Most scientists, industry executives, and government leaders agree: climate change is a serious problem. Extreme weather has made risk insurance unaffordable for many, and insurance companies are convinced that climate change is driving the instability.
If you think it’s all a hoax, take that bet to a Las Vegas bookmaker and see what kind of odds you get.
Like Art's Work?
Share this Post:
Read More Posts
I never thought in my lifetime that coal would no longer be mined and burned in the UK but it has happened (apart from a few antique railway steam engines) as the last giant coal power station closed last month. The damage to the old industrial areas caused by the closures of mines and power plants in Wales, Scotland and England has been massive. If a transition to an electrified economic base is to be achieved then it needs to be planned, fair and applied with compassion as peoples lives are seriously impacted it cannot just be left to the “market”.
Living at 53 degrees north and about 500ft elevation winters would a few decades ago have consisted of a couple of weeks with snow or ice on the ground, not so much now, lucky to get a few frosty mornings, another anecdotal obsevation but most people do not spend their lives outdoors and as with our obervations of the natural world we are affected by shifting baselines, Dickens writings of Christmas bear no relation to current winters in the UK. So I am content to accept that the science is correct.
So it is not that societies cannot change but the pace of change will need to be far faster than at present to stabalise the earths climate system. If the explotation of the US shale deposits really do peak in the next couple of years then maybe that will shift corporate and government action?
J,
Planning will not happen because the energy transition is just another mask for the human superorganism that grows and consumes until it has exhausted its source of energy.
Please read my friend Nate Hagens’ article “Economics for the future – Beyond the superorganism”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919310067
All the best,
Art
We had an aurora borealis in NJ yesterday! Is this a sign of climate change? There was one last year too, I believe. I was born in the 60s and never saw skies like this in NE USA before. I thought we had to go to Canada to see this.
No, Deb, an aurora is not a sign of climate change. It happens when a release of charged particles from the sun interacts with the earth’s magnetic field. Energy is transferred to gas particles in the atmosphere, and released as light when the energized gases return to their normal state.
All the best,
Art
Art,
I am not disagreeing with you, but ‘science is settled’ means funding for alternative points of view, that is science. But in USA and others, the buzz words for science funding includes ‘climate change’. No alternative views including mitigation allowed.
I was a post grad in CC in the USA in the 80’s and the GCM’s were mostly pony and trap (rhyming slang for carp). I hope they have improved.
For non-USA folks it’s always amazing how SUVs or gas guzzlers are celebrated in the USA. The vision of human freedom the USA has offered humanity for >100yrs is a testament to your Founding Fathers. But…. unconstrained capitalism based on debt in the last 40yrs?
As you point out TFR’s are tanking in almost every part of the world, by 2050 and the human race population pyramid will be geriatric and conservative meaning less young people with new ideas (I’m a traditional conservative but I know our limitations).
You have skewered Nukes and renewables and said oil consumption has peaked. No argument there. As a worker in oil, I’d welcome the end of oil and the geopolitical problems of where we get it from. (just give me +5 yrs, God willing).
But a low or non growth world requires the end of usuary – Protestant ideals overturned Catholic in 16C Europe, something that gave us the Age of Exploration (good) and then the Enlightenment (good).
It will be an entirely new paradigm – living within our means. I just hope it won’t lead to wars, this time not a 30yrs war between RC/Prods, but between haves (1st world) and have nots (3rd world).
Interesting times.
JC,
There are large and well-funded organizations whose objective is to dispute climate change. These include but are not limited to the Cato Institute and the Heartland Institute. Do a google search and you will find many more.
All the best,
Art
Why was my post removed? I posted a very sensible, non confrontational response, with valid questions or concerns, and it was removed? Maybe this is what is wrong with “open” discussions on Climate Change. It isn’t a discussion, it consist of people telling others their views while censoring the “open” discussion. Unbelievable!
Moxon,
Your post was not removed. It often takes me half or day to get to approving those posted as I have other things to do like earn a living.
All the best,
Art
I am clearly not as smart as the likes of anyone on here but where is the proof that climate change is a result of the carbon footprint or that it is a result of our industrial revolution the past 100 years? Isn’t it true the earth’s carbon was at higher levels prior to humans roaming the earth? Isn’t true too low of a carbon footprint is bad? The chart you displayed went back 11,000 years, what about prior to that time?
We are told everyday that if we stop driving gas powered cars and drive electric cars we will save the planet, which just isn’t true. And we see who profits from those policies! Maybe the “deniers” exist because of the messaging that takes place by those pushing climate change are the ones telling us what to do, but are not practicing what they preach? How can one not acknowledge the corruption involving “climate change”? How many people have made millions off of pushing climate change? How many times have we been told as a society that the earth will end as we know it in 10 years? All of this creates doubt and suspicion.
Moxon,
I have published many posts including the one to which you responded showing that climate change is the result of human activities. Climate change is complex so reading only one article can’t be expected to answer all questions.
If you want data before 11,000 years ago, you only have to look Figure 2 in the same post or look at the post from October 1:
https://www.artberman.com/blog/the-numbers-dont-lie-why-climate-denial-is-no-longer-possible/
If you’re unwilling to read and consider the data, I can’t help you.
All the best,
Art
I am very troubled by the lack of CO2 mitigation that’s taken place in the last 50 years. Obviously, we’re losing ground – scientists project that we’ll punch over the 1.5* C temp that was set some years ago. I’ve been exposed to Climate disruption by CO2 since 1992. I’ve seen million-person street marches protesting fossil fuel use, I’ve seen protestors gluing themselves to bank doors, petitions, speeches, all the usual “Non-Violent” forms of protest. None of that has worked.
Politicians continue to pocket bribes to protect the oil companies. And the use of fossil fuels has developed an inertia that has proven impossible to stop. We haven’t even reduced the subsidies that the oil companies get, let alone curbed their oil harvesting.
My question becomes: when should Non-Violent protest give way to Violent protest ? Would blowing up a 120 million gallon tanker grind off some of that oil inertia? Pipeline destruction ? Harassment of oil company personell ? Harassment of politicians ?
The point is: If we refuse go on as usual until our world cooks us off the planet, we’ll have to change strategies to make changes. How far should we go to save civilization ? And then of course, how far will the state go in stopping us from saving civilization. ? We’ve seen corporate and state violence ramp up to levels we thought impossible with the current laws in place. But the politicians and other crooks will change those laws to protect the system – so the protestor is doomed to failure.
Dave,
I only support non-violent tactics to draw attention to climate change. Violence would only harden the positions of deniers and give them a different aspect to attack. Look at how violence poisoned public opinion about Black Lives Matter, for example.
All the best,
Art
I am flabbergasted by all the climate deniers among your subscribers. Thank you for standing up to them.
Next up – try to explain (a) biodiversity loss and (b) how it affects humans to your audience. I bet it would flush even more denialism out of the woodwork.
Thanks for your comments, Robin.
It is difficult to read a lot of what people write. I am trying to remind myself that compassion should be my appropriate reaction. Still got some work to do on that!
All the best,
Art
Thank you for the calm and logical way you explain things. There are several more big issues that are going to be coming ‘home to roost’ for the Western world in the next decade or two. One is our belief that we are exceptional and deserve the best and most of everything. Another idea is that we can carry on increasingly using a finite planet to produce an infinity of things, which often get turned into landfill. European exploration of the world only began a century or two after the Chinese sailed to Africa, under Admiral Zheng he I believe, and then the emperor decided to stop exploring. Another thing which will be troubling is when people can no longer drive around in vehicles that are as big as WW2 tanks with engines of 2 or 3 times the horsepower of those tanks [T34 400-500HP]. When my father was born there we just 2 billion humans, when I was born there were just 3 billion and now there are over 8 billion. We need to come to our senses and do the things that are needed to be done, not ignore them.
Thanks for your comments, Bill. I am not optimistic that we will come to our senses.
All the best,
Art
The only uncomfortable truth is Berman’s deeply entrenched climate dogma and his enormous ego which won’t allow him to admit he’s wrong or worse, that he’s been duped. The result is an inability to admit being wrong or even consider that he might be wrong. There are no facts in the universe regardless of source, content or scientific integrity which can convince Berman (and the rest of the climate cult) to even reconsider their position and we can see that by how angry he gets when challenged on this issue.
Berman then pretends he’s open minded by clarifying what ‘settled science’ really means, but it’s a disingenous head fake. There’s plenty of contrary evidence against global warming theory but Berman’s mind is closed tight as a bear trap and we can prove this my looking at his pinned twitter comment:
‘I’m no longer going to waste my time arguing with people about whether climate change and ecocide are real.
If you want to ignore data & scientists who know far more than you or I can ever know, that’s your choice.
Act out your infantile fantasies somewhere else.’
Angry, nasty and about as closed-minded as anyone can get. Berman’s is just right, and if you disagree you’re infantile. Berman’s huge ego is on full display in this comment and it illustrates perfectly the closed-minded arrogance of the climate cult who are thoroughly incapable of questioning their dogma or engaging respectfully and thoughfully with those who disagree. We simply must submit to their superiority and accept the abuse.
Glenn,
I showed data to support my views. Now it’s your turn. Show data to ilustrate that climate change is a cult, and please don’t use the shop-worn and debunked arguments that I’ve shown to be wrong with data in this post and the previous one “The Numbers Don’t Lie: Why Climate Denial Is No Longer Possible”:
https://www.artberman.com/blog/the-numbers-dont-lie-why-climate-denial-is-no-longer-possible/
The reason that I choose not to debate climate change on my X feed is because I’ve already held discussions on those same bogus positions with hundreds of commenters. I am not a help desk for those who are unwilling to understand the arguments against their position made by me and thousands of climate scientists over time.
Dismissing as a cult the 88,000 peer reviewed papers that confirm that climate change is real is hardly an objective foundation for your position. Don’t confuse me with facts is the clear message you give.
Also, try taking your beliefs to a Las Vegas oddsmaker and see what he or she will give you. Nothing because oddsmakers don’t care about right our wrong, just not being on the wrong side of the bet.
Just because you don’t like what the data indicates, doesn’t make the data or its interpretation wrong. You must show that it’s wrong with data.
You are not required to follow me. Your ad hominem tactics expose the desperation and poverty of your arguments, and say a lot about your character.
Art
Art, I know you said there’s really no solutions to the situation we are in. I wonder if there is any purpose in living with a conservationist mindset (rather than consumer based) under the circumstances. If it’s essentially futile now for individuals to change the trajectory, how much do we share this with our children? The schools are instilling a lot of anxiety in kids about the environment, but they teach the kids that we can “save the earth”. What is the proper thing to do in your opinion? It feels a lot like that movie Don’t Look Up.
Deb,
You share this as you would any other serious topic, like a death, that is out of your control. You offer ways to help your children (and adults) cope with reality.
All the best,
Art
I think I heard you elsewhere say that markets are shorting energy / growth. Could this be interpreted as the markets betting on climate change _not_ being a hoax? Or is there more packed into that, e.g geology, geopolitics… all of the above. Maybe the climate aspect of it isn’t a key part of the equation.
Would it be possible to get some insight into indicators that suggest this to you?
I’m not very educated in this area. But what doesn’t make sense to me is that if the market is shorting energy then it’s betting the price will drop. But if we’re heading into energy scarcity, wouldn’t the price rise?
Dylan,
Why don’t you read this recent post on the subject and get back to me with questions?
https://www.artberman.com/blog/the-end-of-growth-why-oil-prices-are-falling/
All the best,
Art
Public opinion
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/
Thanks Et.
All the best,
Art
Art,
I have been traveling and only this weekend read this and the last post. In my opinion there could be no more important -foundational -reading for every person in the United States…including comments and responses! Critical, in my opinion, the historical context, Kuhnian framing succinctly woven within. Unlike commentators such as Doomberg and for example, Mark Mills, whose commentary is ‘grounded’ with data precision, however, their views either dissolve to irrelevance failing to include carbon or GHG exigencies or become sophisticated ‘fodder’ for self deception. It’s as if a brilliant job is done to ‘solve’ for half the equation. Somehow we have to get what you’ve written far beyond this blog…and if in the future you have time or interest to communicate two elements of the most difficult to communicate; 1) the ‘latency’ inherent to the chemical and physical processes in operation 2) that the cost of not acting is exponentially more than than the seemingly unfathomable cost of doing so…now being demonstrated ‘empirically’ by hurricane results in Houston, NC, as I write this, coming AGAIN to FLA. (for example, some ‘hint’ in NOAA’s data of $BB event tracking 1980-2023 – interesting to see the curve when they add the 2024 data!). Thank you Art for your clarity & intellectual discipline, as far as I am concerned, ‘rock solid’ adherence to physical facts of the matter ‘just the facts’ (but all of them!).
Thanks for your comments, John.
All the best,
Art
If you are a scientist and post some findings against the climate change narrative – you are an ex-scientist and jobless. Science is never consensus – if there is consensus you should be soupicious. Any breaktroughs in science were against the “consensus”. Just think of 100 Scientists against Einstein.
“Temperatures during Medieval Warm Period have been misrepresented.” The only way vintage temperatures are “adjusted” is to support the climate-change narrative – I’m watching this for years now.
Rolf,
Your comments confuse me. I first took them to mean that I wasn’t qualified to comment on climate change. I now see that perhaps you were talking about the cancel phenomenon but frankly I’m not sure what you mean.
Art
I don’t believe Rolf was attacking you Art. I think you misread his comment. He was saying that any scientist that goes against the narrative is cancelled.
Neil,
Fair enough. I’ve edited my reply but told Rolf that his comments are unclear.
All the best,
Art
Art,
Like your articles and having spent over 50 years in exploration and development of oil and gas fields, I have spent many hours pondering climate change since I retired. I was reluctant to accept what was happening and hoped more data might weaken the need to change my thinking, acquire new beliefs and change my behavior. The relentless warming and chaotic weather cycles overwhelmed my reluctance to accept reality as surely as if I was stuck in the mud in a rising tide.
Accepting that warming is happening and the changes associated with this warming has led me to more awareness of how much of human evolution has taken place in an Ice Age with periodic interglacial periods. Do you think the Ice Age was beneficial to our evolution and do you think humans could adapt or is that precluded by the rate of warming?
Conrad,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I don’t think that adaptation to the Ice Age is particularly relevant to our present predicament because of the different scales of human population and associated infrastructure.
Humans can adapt, for example, to rising sea levels by moving farther inland. The infrastructure cannot be moved. Ice Age humans were not engaged in agriculture as their principal means of survival so they could follow the herds and survive. We are a society that relies on a stable climate and massive amounts of fertilizer and supply chains for our survival. Our crops are adapted to this climate and cannot adapt by changing their behavior.
All the best,
Art
Hello artberman.com webmaster, Your posts are always thought-provoking and inspiring.
Thank you Katrice.
All the best,
Art
Hi Art – you quote me a couple of times in this post and appeared to be antagonised by my comments in your previous post. I am not actually a climate change denier, nor a rusted on believer. I accept that the mean world temperature has risen by a small amount and that is as a result of the greenhouse effect. CO2 appears to be the prime change agent here and responsible for about a quarter of the effect while water vapour is responsible for about half the greenhouse effect and ozone and other gases the rest. Essentially I am agnostic because I remember in the 1970s when many scientists were predicting a new ice age! Dust in the upper atmosphere was leading to a new ice age. Fluctuations in temperature on earth are the norm. Predicting catastrophe is another norm! Which is not to say that we should not exercise caution or be complacent about the temperature rise. However, the temperature change since the industrial revolution has not always been up although the trend at the moment is. I suggest you have a look at this collection of headlines from the past 50 years which attests to our fickle response to weather. I don’t know what is the shortest interval that could describe climate but probably not less than 30 years and more likely a period longer than 100 years.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
Nick,
I’ve already explained how I feel about your endless sweating of details that just don’t matter in the scheme of things.
The world is not waiting with bated breath for your (or my) acceptance of what the community of science has agreed with.
My objective is to help people who genuinely want to have the information and misinformation sorted in a way that they can understand.
I honestly have no idea what you are trying to accomplish. I recommend that you ponder that.
All the best,
Art
Thanks, Art. I take it from your comment that, while you would categorically argue (as I would) that the “science is settled” as far as the broader climate change message is concerned, you wouldn’t necessarily do so relative to you what you “believe” (“believe” implying not yet fully confident of the data???) to be “compelling and persistent patterns of weather…”, but which are not yet fully supported by data. This is the way I see it. An example would be wildfires. Over the last twenty or so years, notwithstanding disastrous regional impacts, global carbon emissions from wildfires have indicated a slight downward trend. (Source: Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service – https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/2023-year-intense-global-wildfire-activity). Note that the carbon emissions data are based on measurements of global wildfire radiative power. I believe that this is likely to reverse, but to claim that, on a global basis, wildfires are getting worse only gives fodder to deniers to challenge credibility of the broader message – until the data suggest otherwise. There are key “settled” attribution examples (earth’s energy imbalance trend, global temperature trends, sea levels, etc.) for which the data is much more sound. Why use premature claims that don’t have solid data support, until they can be fully supported by data?
Ian,
Why do you insist on getting lost in the trees rather than paying attention to the forest?
I assume that you are not an earth scientist but are a curious, knowledgeable amateur. Why spend so much energy sweating the details when the overall situation is so clear. Instead of chasing all of these rabbits down their respective holes, why not use your considerable knowledge to help others understand the bigger picture through your relationships and community?
All the best,
Art
Hold the line against the stubborn deniers. You are using the relevant numbers.
Thank you for your encouragement, Dean.
All the best,
Art
Firstly, Art, I am not a climate scientist, but a retired energy scientist with 40 years experience with an international oil and gas major. There I was involved in part of the preparation of the annual energy outlook. This included aspects of climate change and looked at BOTH the forest AND the trees. I consider the ability to look at both to be important for understanding. After 14 years of retirement, I continue to be interested in energy, including earth’s energy systems. While I am not a climate scientist, I have taken a number of online climate physics and science courses, along with several renewable energy courses. With that background, while I hesitate to repeat myself – my concern is that there are those (some of whom ARE scientists) who are focusing on the trees (weather events) to the detriment of an understanding of the forest and this detracts from credibility. I don’t think you and I are that far apart. But I think that in diminishing the value of the concerns I outline (“rabbit holes”), you are missing my point. To borrow your own phraseology, I suggest you ponder what I have said. My sense is you tend to dismiss it. Which may or may not be the concern I suggest it is. But if I am right, scientists could be doing a better job of outlining what is “settled” and what isn’t.
I continue to look forward to your posts. There is much in them of value and little in them that I disagree with. I share them frequently because I think you do a better job articulating than I do.
Ian,
Thanks for clarifying but I suggest that you make your comments clear enough so that I don’t need you to translate them for me.
I believe it is worth noting that recent temperatures have reached levels not seen in at least thousands and possibly millions of years according to Stefan Rahmstorf. That’s not attributional hearsay.
All the best,
Art
Thanks, Art. I listened to the Hagens/Rahmstof interview. Little dispute there. As we discussed, my problem is not with that. It’s with attribution that is not (yet) supported by data, whether the data is still evolving or whether it is “hearsay”. Time will expose all prognosticators…
Art,
I suspect you all will think me crazy but, my contention is rocket launches.
Prick your skin enough times with a small needle and you will have bloody mess.
Keep tearing small holes in our precious atmosphere and the results may be we don’t know what.
Stephen,
There is no data to support that belief. Why don’t you just pay attention to the explanations based on clear data? Why make it more complicated than it is already?
All the best,
Art
Stephen, Art,
Thank you for bringing a smile! I cannot pass your comment by! My father, who loved to read but whose formal education ended with high school would from time to time say – this is 50 years ago – two things that would receive scoffs if not hollows of laughter from his PhD and professional engineer level children, son-in-laws, extended family….-his view the climate was changing and, yes, those -rocket launches! HA! HA! In 2018 I applied to and was invited to participate in a Climate Reality 3 day seminar, expert after expert, yes, ‘data driven’. I would think of my father sitting near a crate by his small garden, it filling with garlic harvested as his father had done in the same small plot every single year at about the same time in the year for decades….
Thank you for these last several articles on climate science. I think most of us are placing bets every day via our actions. Energy use is driven by our consumption, and I think of the laws of thermodynamics that energy is not created or destroyed only transferred or transformed, and that entropy increases in an irreversible process. Most of human consumption is irreversible. From that alone I can reason that human actions will impact our climate and planet.
My takeaway from these articles has been that the ever-increasing energy consumption is driving ever-increasing entropy in the overall system. At the root of it, seems like humans are set on higher and higher growth rates and returns, clamoring for more and more consumption. At this point, I see AI accelerating this pattern, as we are employing more of it, requiring even more energy to be consumed. I recently listened to the Google CTO say that there was not enough energy in North America to power the future needs of AI. Alarming when the vast majority seems to be used for vain, worthless digital artifacts 😊.
From your perspective, what can we the average citizen do besides work on our own consumption?
Thank you,
Dennis
Dennis,
The most important thing that individuals can do is to provide objective information to those who are interested by are not able to sort the truth from the lies. Community and relationships are the great casualty of our age.
The other thing is to recognize that those who doubt the reality of climate change are mostly motivated by fear–fear of how our world is changing in ways that are threatening to them. Their alarm is authentic regardless of how that translates into belief, whether about climate, immigration or trust in our institutions.
Most critically, work on your own inner life. However things work out in the outside world, your ability to adapt and help others will depend on your spiritual health.
All the best,
Art
Art,
Thanks for putting the information out there for people to take in. Accepting human-caused climate change (and ecological overshoot) can be hard to swallow, so I appreciate the data you have provided over the years connecting human activities with these realities.
David
Thanks for your comments, David.
All the best,
Art
Please dot let these people discourage you.
As I said before for 20 years I have been outside all day long ………the weather is getting worse .
I never got why all the oil and coal had to be burned at once? Why is saving so irreplaceable a thing so bad.
With a little backhoe thanks to oil I can dig a yard size hole literally for 30 cents ,there is no way anything can match that energy density.
Thanks for your comment, Aaa.
All the best,
Art
Hey Art,
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and i appreciate that. Just answering the headline of your article, my response is many unfortunate investors bet on “green energy” & frightfully so they’ve lost their shirts … from 2015 to 2023, $15 trillions of such money was spent on green energy. The world’s consumption of hydrocarbons went from 84% to 81%… I must say this reduction is also the proverbial low cost / low hanging fruit. Keep up the good work and speak your mind but don’t be frustrated when you see responses such as this in return. So what’s the answer? Affordable Reliable Clean Energy Security, the states will lead the charge with natural gas is green and clean energy &
https://alec.org/model-policy/the-affordable-reliable-and-clean-energy-security-act/
Tom,
Thanks for your comments. I don’t agree that policy will make much difference. The subject and the problem is growth of the human project. Unless we’er talking about how to reduce that, we’re playing with ourselves.
All the best,
Art
Art – Thanks to you for thought-provoking articles I always eagerly look forward to reading.
For a while now I’ve been reading material from both sides of the aisle regarding climate change, and being an earth scientist, I have tried to place recent (last 1000 yrs or so) temperature/CO2 data in a broader context – 100’s of millions of yrs – and thus have considered many deeply historical climate reconstructions using proxy data.
Bottom line is that I have tried, but have yet to see any data that lead me to be unduly alarmed at our recent increases. What has made an impression are the extremes the earth has experienced, and the abruptness of change. I have also searched through historical data on storms, droughts, and generally regarded “extreme” weather events. Again, some data show a recent uptick, but nothing that would cause me undue alarm.
I’m concerned that the tendency today to focus on data from narrow time intervals may lead to conclusions without benefit of geological context. Many journalists – and climate scientists – seem to regard events as extreme only if they happen in their lifetimes. And to be fair this is a commonly shared tendency for us all I suppose.
Given these observations however, I have a hard time believing that over a century of fossil fuel combustion comes at minimum cost, in terms of air quality, environmental degradation, temp increases, etc. Balanced against the negatives however is our modern civilization, love it or hate it, and how the industrial age has shaped our world.
Has it been worth it? That’s a tough one to answer, but I doubt any politician will campaign on throttling back energy use to take our society back to more “normal” conditions. Your data from past articles showing how recent renewable energy contributions have been additive, rather than replacing, fossil energy were an eye opener. The green revolution faces an incredibly hard uphill battle, and for this reason, I agree with your thesis that a reduction in total energy consumption is the only voluntary solution.
Will a new technology come along to make energy generation clean and abundant? Maybe, but until then what could cause our society to use less energy period? I fear nothing short of “involuntary” solutions such as world war or a pandemic will accomplish this.
Thanks again for providing us with great timely articles that make us think.
Mike
Mike,
Your conclusions that there is no emergency are completely wrong. That said, I don’t expect anything meaningful will be done to change the trajectory we’re on. Human organizations are not designed for crisis management.
All the best,
Art
Art, I don’t get it. You are maybe the best to go to for information on fossil extraction. You have supplied lots of valuable info in that field. Your knowledge there is well known and respected.
Your recently dive into the cooking pot of climate change doesn’t make any sense. There are too many different interests, political, commercial in that. The whole hysteria around windmills, battery cars etc that is about to implode now shows that.
The notion that we somehow would change the path we are on to the seneca cliff is unrealistic. We will continue extraction of the last fossil resources even when we destroy our environment doing so. That is how previous high cultures has ended, so will ours.
Regards
P-O
P-O,
First, My “dive” into climate change and planetary overshoot is nothing new. Check my posts: I’ve been posting on these subjects since at least 2020.
https://www.artberman.com/blog/climate-change-the-great-and-silly-debate/
Energy is the root cause of climate change, and almost everything else in the world. My energy expertise is hugely relevant especially given the lack of knowledge in this area by most writing on the subject.
I’m not trying to change anyone or anything. I’m trying to offer information and perspective to the few who are confused but willing to understand.
All the best,
Art
Art,
Global warming has become an almost religious hysteria, used by many in different situations and for different reasons. Yes it’s getting warmer, how much of it is due to fossil fuel and how much is natural changes will show up in due time. I just don’t see a reason to amplify it. It’s not our biggest problem, we can adjust to a little warmer.
A quote from Nate Hagens: ”Climate change is not the problem but a symptom of a much larger dynamic witch is called ecological overshoot.”
That is what we should focus on instead. Return to a balance with the environment that keep us alive. That will mean a reduction of energy use, a change in our way of living. But don’t blame it on global warming, it’s been misused by so much that it raise a warning flag among many of us and is contra-productive.
We have to change our economic system to similar principles that Edo, Japan had. Change from using greed as a driver, to cooperation with each other instead to preserve what we have left of the biosphere here on our planet. Use Permaculture and similar principles to reduce competition and enhance cooperation to get the most out of our diminishing resources.
Sadly politics is more about war than cooperation, we seem to be fighting about the last resources instead. That is the natural reaction to blame someone else when we fail to see our own mistakes.
Regards
P-O
P-O,
Global heating is almost 100% because of human activity, and no we cannot adjust to it being “just a little warmer” any more than when you have a 102°F fever, it’s just “a little warmer.” You’re dead.
Your earth science PhD from Google University is not a credential to argue science. Do you argue surgical technique with your cardiologist or neurosurgeon? Same situation.
As I said in my post, take your bet against climate change to Las Vegas and see what odds a professional bookmaker will give you–not one nickel because he knows the odds.
All the best,
Art
You sound like Lyndon LaRouche and Vincent Offer combined. Sad to see you turn your site into a carney act.
John,
You are not required to read my posts. I am not required to take your unsolicited advice.
It was not advice…It was an observation
Art, I agree with you that the evidence is overwhelming that temperatures are increasing due to human activity – predominantly the burning of fossil fuels. There is little left in the balance of probabilities to dispute this or the earth’s increasing energy (im)balance. However, I have difficulty with the fact that many academics and, unfortunately much of the (largely technically uninformed) media’s extrapolation of this to mean that all “attribution science” is settled. And that almost innumerable negative individual weather or weather related – not trends – (and even events seemingly totally unrelated to weather) can YET be attributed to climate change. (Although they might be in the future.) To me this “impatience to attribute” just gives deniers an opportunity to dispute the broader credibility of the message in your post.
Iam,
I don’t attribute every weather to climate change but I believe that there are compelling and persistent patterns of weather that are probably climate related.
I’m not concerned with climate-change deniers using my work as an opportunity to dispute the broader message because they will do that regardless of its content.
Thanks for your comments,
Art