Wood Romances

Did you know that there have been 50 failed doomsday predictions since the 1960s? Yea, neither did I, but that's what an opinion piece at AEI from 2019 claims. The article compiles its list from several sources, including 27 from Tony Heller. A Breitbart article upped that to 41. Then Perry added 9 more from Heller to get it up to 50. When his list had 41 predictions, Perry wrote, "For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong. In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent... and it never happened. And not once — not even once!" The logic of this is bafflingly stupid, even if we accept his opinions on these predictions at face value. If there are 41 (updated to 50) failed predictions on this list, that doesn't indicate a ...

Cliff Harris and Randy Mann promote themselves as climatologists and meteorologists that interpret "weather and Bible prophecy" for the benefit of us all today. They even have a self-published Amazon book  published in 2015 on the subject. In the book, the authors claim to have 60 years experience studying the Bible, weather, and climate, and the low price of $1.99, they will share with you this knowledge so you can have a "joyful, peaceful, and successful life on Earth," at least until you're raptured off the Earth before the "tribulation period." So what can we learn from these scholars in Bible, weather, and climate prophecies? It's hard to say, because it changes pretty frequently. They periodically publish their climate history of global temperatures , now with prophecies through 2040, but it changes on a near-annual basis. Since the wayback machine keeps a record of past versions of their graph, we can look at them and see how they change the...

Another common contradiction I see among contrarian influencers is that observational data are manipulated to fit a global warming agenda that comes solely from fudged climate models that simultaneously predict far too much warming than observational data. Let's write this as two statements that make the contradiction even more obvious, where:      A = Model Predictions      B = Observational Data      C = Climate Scam Agenda  The contradiction can be stated in at least two ways. In the simpler statement, A = B and A ≠ B: Observational data are manipulated to agree with model predictions. Models are fudged to predict far more warming than is warranted from observational data.  The logic can sometime be stated in a way that is slightly more complex. Here's another wording of the same contradiction. In this case A = C and B = C (so A = B) and A ≠ B: Model predictions are fudged and observations are fabricated to agree with...

How Increasing CO2 Affects Radiative Forcings and GMST If you pay enough attention to contrarian climate influencers, you may begin to notice how frequently they flat out contradict themselves . I think they hope that as long as they are careful to word contradictory claims in sufficiently different ways without saying both within the same minute or so, you won't notice. So I thought it might helpful to expose some of these contradictory claims. I'll start with my personal favorite: CO2 concentrations are both low/starved and high/saturated. This contradiction appears to be particularly common among those who speak for the CO2 Coalition , like William Happer, John Shewchuk and Gregory Wrightstone. You can find these influencers and propagandists saying both of the following: CO2 concentrations are so how that the planet is starved of CO2. We're in a "CO2 famine." CO2 concentrations are so high that its effect is "saturated" in the atmosphere. These are c...

A popular contrarian trope promoted by Bjorn Lomborg  and his followers is that " climate-related deaths " have plummeted since 1920. Recently, he's claimed that there has been a 97.5% reduction in climate-related deaths since 1920. This is an extremely misleading graph, and it's not too difficult to uncover why. Lomborg got his data for "climate-related" deaths from the Our World in Data website, which lists deaths from "natural disasters" (OWD does not specify which of these deaths from natural disasters are "climate-related." I went to the site to see if I can reproduce Lomborg's graph. He only lists " floods, droughts, storms, and wildfires " but OWD includes other causes of death, including extreme weather and temperature. It's possible that by "storms" he means "extreme weather," but it's impossible to know what he's calling a "storm" to understand what he included and exclude...