Alan Carlin: The “Green New Dealers” have lost all perspective

Posted: March 23, 2019 by oldbrew in alarmism, Big Green, climate, Critique, Temperature
Tags: , ,

Do we have a climate problem or a bad science problem? The author argues for the latter.

Perhaps the worst aspect of the “Green New Deal” (GND) recently proposed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Edward Markey is that the authors have lost (or possibly never had) all perspective on climate change, writes Alan Carlin.

They are acting as if climate change were as bad a problem as the Great Depression, and that another “New Deal” is required for the US to survive.

This shows that they they really have no understanding of climate change and that Congress should never appropriate any funds for the purposes proposed by the GNDers.

If they have such a bad understanding of this problem, what would they do if there actually were a real problem? It makes one worry that the GNDers might be willing to start World War III on the basis of nothing.

The larger view is that prior to about 1860 the world was suffering from the Little Ice Age, the coldest period for several hundred years with many adverse effects on humans and their crops. What the world needed was higher temperatures, not colder temperatures.

During the 1930s the world began to get what it so badly needed, warmer temperatures. So then there was some warming again from the 1970s until recently. And now the climate extremists want lower temperatures rather than realizing that the present relative warmth is just what we needed.

There are now increasing indications that temperatures may fall again over the next decade or two because of a weakening sun. The temperature changes to date are entirely consistent with past variations in climate temperatures. Clearly the best thing to do is nothing.

But the GND supporters are desperate to claim an emergency and spend almost one hundred trillion dollars of taxpayer and ratepayer money claiming that the problem they see must be solved in 12 years if the world is to survive.

We do not even understand how the climate system works, let alone how to solve the alleged problem. As explained on this blog and my Book, everything points to bad “science,” not an emergency.

How crazy can you get!

Full article here.

  1. erl happ says:

    Stupid crazy.

    The hypothetical carbon dioxide back radiation, surface warming effect, has been absent across the southern hemisphere for thirty years in the month of January. Carbon dioxide is well mixed, and it’s supposed effects should manifest across and around the entire globe in every month of the year. It doesn’t go on holiday for Christmas.

    In the world of science, a single exception invalidates a hypothesis.

    Here is the data for the southern hemisphere. In January, the average temperature by the decade:
    1979-88 was 17.71°C,
    1989-98 was 17.42°C,
    1999-2008 was 17.5°C
    2009-18 was 17.69°C

    Source of data:

  2. pochas94 says:

    No fear. The Green Dragon is only sleeping.

  3. stpaulchuck says:

    those of us who have been paying attention knew this was a scam early on.

    Right out of the gate their doomsday scenarios were based on incompetent computer programs. In the very first sweep of about three dozen computer models, one and only one predicted warming. Several predicted cooling and the rest flipped and flopped when they were run multiple times. That’s what they based their claims of future calamity on. Currently, of some 90 models only a couple track near the actual temperature curves of the last 30 years. The rest wildly exaggerate the rise.

    From the beginning all of them failed to ‘predict the past’. For those who are not computer mavens, we take the real world data and save off 10% or 20% of the most recent values and build the model based the the older data. Once we get it programmed to model the data closely we then let it predict the rest of the data and compare the results. They failed. Every time.

    Then there’s the fact that over 40% of reported temperatures are fiction. Yep, made up numbers, “estimated” BS, yet reported as official temperatures. There’s also the eyeball survey of hundreds of weather stations located next to air conditioners, airport taxiways with jet engines running just a few yards away, on or next to large black asphalt parking lots, etc., etc.

    Last but not least is my favorite – the “adjustments” to the raw data. Merely subtract the raw temperature data from the reported data and plot the differences. Then (adjusting the scaling) plot the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Lo and behold! They match. In other words, as CO2 rises the data molesters increase the “adjustment” to the raw data thus making it appear that temperatures are rising rapidly with the rise in CO2.

    The media are uninterested. It would spoil their scare stories. The science watchdogs like the American Academy of Science, NOAA, NASA are not only not interested in this proof of scientific crime, but actively participate in it. Tar, feathers, rails, and these charlatans; some assembly required.

  4. BoyfromTottenham says:

    “They are acting as if climate change were as bad a problem as the Great Depression, and that another “New Deal” is required for the US to survive.”
    Typical disinformation from the watermelons. If they win the 2020 Presidency any Depression will be due to their policies, not ‘Climate Change’. But of course they would blame it on the Trump’s failure to address “Climate Change”, not their policies. The old lefty thimble and pea trick, once again.

  5. Graeme No.3 says:


    I do like the comment by the Icelandic weather/climate person ” I hope NASA doesn’t “adjust” the figures for 1904 any cooler or my (4) Grandparents won’t ever meet”.

  6. oldbrew says:

    New sport: fact-checking the future

    O’ROURKE, on global warming: “This is our final chance. The scientists are absolutely unanimous on this. That we have no more than 12 years to take incredibly bold action on this crisis.” — remarks in Keokuk, Iowa, on Thursday.

    THE FACTS: There is no scientific consensus, much less unanimity, that the planet only has 12 years to fix the problem.

  7. oldbrew says:

    Reality check…


    “We love the enthusiasm the Green New Deal has brought to the climate issue … but we need to operate in political reality,” stated Dan Whitten, the Solar Energy Industries Association’s vice president of public affairs. His association serves as the main lobby group for solar companies.

  8. tom0mason says:

    Kenneth Richard’s post over at shows us ‘Busted Hockey Sticks: 35 Non-Global Warming Papers Have Been Published In 2019’

    Some consensus?

  9. oldbrew says:

    March 20, 2019
    Arctic Sea Ice 2019 Wintertime Extent Is Seventh Lowest

    Sea ice in the Arctic appears to have hit its annual maximum extent after growing through the fall and winter. The 2019 wintertime extent reached on March 13 ties with 2007’s as the 7th smallest extent of winter sea ice in the satellite record, according to scientists at the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center and NASA.
    . . .
    “The temperatures in the Arctic were a bit higher than average and we saw a lot of ice loss in the Bering Sea, but nothing this winter was as extreme or dramatic compared to recent years and the record lows.”
    – – –
    No El Niño effects this time. ‘Ties with 2007’ shows no link to ‘man-made’ carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

  10. oldbrew says:

    Date: 26/03/19 Mark P. Mills, Manhattan Institute

    Hydrocarbons—oil, natural gas, and coal—are the world’s principal energy resource today and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future. Wind turbines, solar arrays, and batteries, meanwhile, constitute a small source of energy, and physics dictates that they will remain so. Meanwhile, there is simply no possibility that the world is undergoing—or can undergo—a near-term transition to a “new energy economy.”

    The “New Energy Economy”: An Exercise in Magical Thinking

    One could imagine an OKEC (Organization
    of Kilowatt-Hour Exporting Countries) that
    shipped barrels of electrons around the
    world from nations where the cost to fill those
    “barrels” was lowest; solar arrays in the Sahara,
    coal mines in Mongolia (out of reach of Western
    regulators), or the great rivers of Brazil.

    But in the universe that we live in, the cost to store
    energy in grid-scale batteries is, as earlier noted,
    about 200-fold more than the cost to store natural gas
    to generate electricity when it’s needed. That’s why
    we store, at any given time, months’ worth of national
    energy supply in the form of natural gas or oil.

    Click to access R-0319-MM.pdf

  11. oldbrew says:

    Green No Deal – game over

    Senate votes down Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal 57-0 – Dems vote ‘present’

    No doubt the next crackpot scheme to save the world from hobgoblins will be along shortly.