Burning Down The Climate Straw Man
As the inevitably painful consequences of unfounded climate alarmism hit home with our very own energy crisis, Australians are entitled to point to our massive reserves of oil, coal, and gas (and yes, uranium) and ask, ‘Why? Why are we suddenly running short of ridiculously expensive energy?’
No, it’s not Putin … He’s a convenient and current, minor straw man. The real straw man is life-giving gas, demonized by political activists for more than 30 years.
Caught in a decades-long whirlwind of junk science, the credo of climate alarmism is encouraging politicians to repeat things that are simply not true. (Don’t laugh, this is serious.)
What I mean by this is the [accumulation of indisputably false assertions that are nevertheless utilized] in attacking the straw man – ‘dirty, polluting’ fossil fuel emissions of filthy carbon dioxide. (Again, don’t laugh, we fell for it.)
In a rational government, alarming climate claims would have been scrutinized and verifiable facts (e.g., reference to geology science) would play a key role. Naah!
If you are a diehard convert to climate alarmism, please read on.
A straw man argument is one in which the subject being attacked is made up (to be blunt about it); i.e., a straw man, not a real man … or, in this context, a manufactured evil that is set up as the target of attack without evidence for its veracity: emissions are pollutants and harming the planet.
Weapons used for such attacks include claims of an expert consensus supporting the validity of the target (but still without evidence), exaggerating threats to catastrophic levels, and bare-faced lies (or at best woeful ignorance) spouted by politicians about the dangers of ‘climate change’.
Examples of this include: extreme weather events increasing due to climate change. False (see 2011 IPCC report).
Pacific islands are sinking as sea levels rise due to climate change. False (see ABC, BBC news reports).
Polar bears at risk of extinction. False (see State of the Polar Bear Report 2021).
Global warming is endangering the planet’s flora. False. (see NASA greening report).
That’s what I mean by junk science. It can also be called misinformation as it is certainly misleading. The motivation for this essay is the pernicious nature of lies repeated in the public square by leading politicians.
Politicians, we are entitled to trust on serious matters like life-saving and/or life-threatening energy policies.
Politicians have a duty to be well informed in their portfolio, and in the case of the Prime Minister (along with Cabinet), fully informed of the potential consequences of all policy formulation.
The factual information is readily available to refute junk science. This is the age of Google. If you have staff and policy advisers at your disposal, you have no excuse for telling the public untrue things. Ever.
But especially in a field of policy that is more consequential than any other (defense perhaps excepted).
But of course, the junk science to which I refer was seeded by the original sin of the 30-year-old climate change scenario and the false premise upon which it is based: dangerous warming due to man-made ‘fossil fuel’ emissions, setting up CO2 as the straw man.
Why was this fundamental claim never scrutinized in the public square?
In fact, as geologists have always known, CO2 increases in our atmosphere after warming, not before it. There goes the foundation stone of climate alarmism.
The climate-alarm-gullible parts of the world (I specifically exclude China) are torn asunder by fearmongering activists, politicians, investment opportunists, and well-meaning but ignorant sheeple, all identifying as saviors of our planet.
Installing fear of catastrophic global warming has thus become the tool to forge policy without scrutiny.
As Swedish physician Hans Rosling has said, ‘Something frightening poses a perceived risk. Something dangerous poses a real risk.’ Esteemed scientist Dr. Judith Curry quotes Rosling in her December 13, 2022, paper, titled Misperception and amplification of climate risk:
‘The issue of psychological trauma of children is one that I am continuing to work on, to identify root causes and a way forward.
‘The theme of this particular post is how our perceptions of risk differ from the actual risk itself.
Understanding this difference provides insights to understanding these fears, as well as providing insights into how these differences are manipulated by propagandists.’
Does that ring a bell?
It’s worth quoting Curry at length here:
‘Climate activists, the media, and even scientists seized on the “extreme weather event caused by climate change” narrative as being the ideal vehicle for ramping up the alarm about human-caused global warming.
‘Every extreme weather event is now attributed to global warming, even extreme cold outbreaks and heavy snow. Scientists who should know better just can’t resist the opportunities for media attention and enthusiastically place blame on human-caused global warming.
In spite of the fact that IPCC assessment reports find very little in the way of any contribution of human-caused global warming to extreme weather events.
‘… if you look back into paleoclimate record, you will find much worse weather and climate extremes. (eg how the ice age ended due to natural warming). No matter – never let the historical and paleoclimate data records get in the way of an alarming story that attributes the most recent disaster to fossil fuel emissions, and so amping up the pressure to eliminate fossil fuel emissions.
‘In terms of risk perception, this amplified narrative of alarm emphasizes that these ‘climate change’ catastrophes are imposed on society by villainous fossil fuel companies.
‘And now for the final element of manipulating risk perception: asymmetric distribution of risks, whereby children and under-developed countries are at greatest risk. Serious virtue signalling tells us we need to eliminate fossil fuel emissions for the sake of the children and the underdeveloped countries.
Well, children in affluent countries are at far less risk than their great-great grandparents (not to mention children in underdeveloped countries) owing to the presence of fossil fuels in their lives that provide secure structures for their homes and schools with central heating and air conditioning, not to mention abundant electricity and also fertilizer to ensure their food supply.
‘I can only conclude that the climate catastrophists focused on elimination of fossil fuels above all else are exploiting and damaging children and underdeveloped countries as part of their political objectives to prioritizing elimination of fossil fuels above all else.
If children and developing countries are collateral damage, then so be it (oops they seem to have forgotten their original virtue signalling of eliminating fossil fuels for the sake of the children and the underdeveloped countries).’
That’s why Curry has this sarcastic salvo for alarmists:
‘Congratulations to all the proselytizers of climate doom, you have finally demonstrated an actual adverse impact of climate change that is actually caused by humans – psychological distress.’
The government has totally failed to interrogate climate action advocates and runs policy formulation ad hoc and in panic.
Like throttling fossil fuel production before securing a reliable (as distinct from so-called renewable) replacement for them. File under ‘Criminal Negligence by Government’. Don’t blame the activists: it’s Cabinet that makes the decisions.
John Kerry, the US ‘climate czar’, is not the only politician looking foolish as the zealotry manifests; Australia’s Chris Bowen, our own ‘climate czar’, has a firm hold on the Global Alarmist of the Year Award, doggedly demonstrating his extraordinary and smug hubris (that is a well-earned tautology) in ignorance about his portfolio topic.
The results are clear to see in energy chaos and public harm. All due to the straw man.
Would we find it acceptable for the Education Minister not to know the alphabet?
The futility of destructive emission reduction policies pursued by Australia’s various ‘climate change’-besotted governments is underlined by the risible fact that we produce a little over 1 percent of the trace gas in the atmosphere (of the 0.04 percent in total) that we are being forced to try and eliminate.
But don’t laugh, it’s not funny: we should find such ignorance at the highest levels of governments – state as well as federal – unacceptable.
See more here climatechangedispatch
Header image: My London
About the author: Andrew L. Urban is the author of Climate Alarm Reality Check (Wilkinson Publishing), whose offer to donate all his royalties to Save the Children was refused “as it appears to be spreading misinformation about the climate crisis”.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Terry Shipman
| #
As I read this article it is 2F outside with a 15mph wind blowing. I am in my recliner with my 25 pound dog in my lap wearing his doggie sweater. My natural gas wall heater is running with 3 out 5 bricks lit. I survived the night without any pipes freezing. I would much rather pay a big water bill than pay a plumber to fix frozen then thawed busted pipes. Recently a young friend didn’t think he needed to let his hot water taps drip during the night. After the thaw he and his wife were without water until his landlord got the pipes fixed. Well, he’s young and learned his lesson.
My house is on the National Register of Historic Places and was built on this site in 1901. My mother was born in 1911 and was raised here when the only heat was the fireplace and wood stoves. There was only well water and the outhouse out back. My grandmother raised her eight children cooking on a small wood-burning cook stove for about 40 years until the town got natural gas in the 1940’s.
The family used oil lamps for lighting until the town got electricity sometime in the 1930’s. I was 8 years old in 1958 when the town got municipal water then sewer in 1969. My grandmother lived to see electrical service and natural gas service but didn’t live to see indoor plumbing and sewer.
I was raised in St. Louis and my parents and I vacationed in the old house every summer until we moved here in 1968 after my father’s retirement. I remember prior to 1958 having to draw water from the well out back. I especially remember the horrible, smelly outhouse. I hated the thing since it was filled with wasp nests in the summer time. My uncle lived here back them and it didn’t bother him to use the outhouse at night. Not me! I wouldn’t get near it at night because of snakes and wasps.
My mother made some unwise changes to the house in 1968 when she and my father made the house their retirement home. She removed the fireplace and the brick flues in the original kitchen and the original dining room. I have now have had all three rebuilt. I have two oil lamps sitting on the restored fireplace mantel. I had no photographs of it but, with my memories of it, the cabinet maker on Front Street was able to build a mantel that is probably 95% of the original mantel.
When my widowed grandmother was able to have natural gas installed she moved the kitchen to another room in the house and basically abandoned the original kitchen and dining room. As part of my restoration of the old two story house I rebuilt my grandmother’s 1901 kitchen complete with the brick flue that vented her cook stove. I put a modern natural gas cook stove where her wood burning cook stove sat. Wouldn’t she have loved to have raised her eight children cooking on the gas stove I installed where her wood burning stove sat?
I am the third generation owner of the old house, which is the only property in town on the National Register, and I love telling the story of the house. Part of that story is how fossil fuels made it livable. In order, electricity, natural gas, running water and finally, sewer. Climate alarmists need to try living as my grandparents lived before modern services came to town. Prior to 1958 I would have to take a bath in a wash tub with my father heating water in a pot on the stove. He could never get the water hot enough to suit me, even though it was summer. I missed our bath tub and hot water from the natural gas water heater in our house in St. Louis.
Climate alarmists, beware. I am not willing to give up what we have now with modern services. The time may come when civil war breaks out to protect our way of life. Remember Sri Lanka.
Reply
Tom
| #
Thanks for a great story.
Reply
Boris Badenov
| #
I’m a touch older than you are, my grandparents lived in Oakland CA. before it turned into a shyt hole. She had a coal burning stove, electric lights, candles on the Christmas Tree. I don’t know about the heater or the hot water, I was too young. We had hot days in the summer, thunderstorms in the summer, flooding rains in the winter. Now…it’s all the end of the world.
Reply
barry
| #
Agw is for the scientifically illiterate as most are. At 64 I’m old enough to have been through the ice age of the seventies to the now we will all burn up in 10 years saga. These are great horror stories for children with no understanding of wx or nature but there is no excuse for anyone with an iq higher than their shoe size. I always thought it was a political scam but decided a few years back to take a look at the actual science involved. I have no formal education so thought it would be quite a task, however after only a few google searches and a couple of days of reading I was well on my way to understanding how science has been totally hi jacked for political reasons. There is no reason why anyone shouldn’t be able to do the same.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Friend Barry,
You just wrote: “however after only a few google searches and a couple of days of reading I was well on my way to understanding how science has been totally hi jacked for political reasons. There is no reason why anyone shouldn’t be able to do the same.”
“Totally hi jacked”. Until I read this I was suffering under the illusion that you were finding this to be not true. The key word is ‘totally’ for this word implies I am one of these “political” people and your total comment implies that Galileo did not know the political consequences of his observed proof (which required far more than a couple of days) that the Earth DID NOT STANDSTILL But he invested his time and efforts in hopes there were others who could understand that which he observed with his telescope and what they could see by observing the Earth’s moon.. For he had faith in the abilities of others. As he wrote, as translated by someone: “I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Barry
| #
Hi Jerry
Think you missed my point was not that I understood it all but that I could see how the science political groups were telling us all had been settled by conscenses was not science at all but the political elite had hijacked science for their own purposes. When you have actual so called scientists getting payed to tell lies which obviously go against their real beliefs and knowledge then indeed science has been hijacked.
Barry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
At one time I didn’t consider history and historians to be important. But clearly I was wrong again for in things “intellectual” (what ever this is) history and historian are essential. Someone has stated something like this: We must study, and remember, history so we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past.
And if you ask: What mistakes of the past?, you must have a problem I admit I cannot correct. Some mistakes, once committed cannot be corrected, But we should try to recognize these mistakes and try to avoid making them again. Yes, I am repeating.
Mistake number ONE about SCIENCE: Not accepting that the KNOWLEDGE of SCIENCE is always UNCERTAIN. That the only thing that can be proven by SCIENCE (observation) are the IDEAS which are ABSOLUTELY WRONG. That the Earth standstill is one of those ABSOLUTELY WRONG ideas of the past (history).
Can you agree that the accepted knowledge of science is always uncertain? And offer another example of accepted, but absolutely wrong idea, in the history of SCIENCE.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Barry
| #
Hi Jerry
Yes I agree the only thing we know for sure is we don’t know anything for sure.
Barry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
No, Scientists have proven some accepted SCIENTIFIC ideas (THEORIES) to be absolutely wrong as I just wrote. I will try to illustrate this with this article. (https://principia-scientific.com/darwins-idea-evolution-about-the-origin-of-life-is-a-wrong-scientific-idea/)
In this I used the case of Einstein and his idea that gravity could bind light knowing the following. Astronomers had observed that the Sun rose over the an eastern horizon before it should based upon their observations at later times of the day until high noon. They explained this observation by considering that the decreasing density of the Earth’s atmosphere with increasing altitude refracted the direct sunlight.
Einstein is claimed to have stated: “To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and makes real advances is science.” And, “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” And, “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.”
About the last quote I could not identify to what, or to whom, Einstein might be referring. However, some history: Einstein, upon earning his doctorate, apparently was not offered a professorship at any university; so he found employment as a patent clerk. So, because he was human, this must have hurt a little until he discovered: “Science is a wonderful thing if one does have to earn one’s living at it.”
I have read enough to become convinced that Einstein was never certain that gravity could bend light. So I imagine that he decided to play a little with those who did not recognize his talents by predicting how much the Sun’s atmosphere would bend the light of a certain star due to the phenomenon of refraction (without mentioning (hiding) the possibility of atmospheric refraction).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Barry
| #
Jerry
Was going to say to that we live on the east coast of Vancouver isle now but spent half my life in central Sask. today we too are experiencing some freezing rain and snow earlier after that over riding warm front off the pacific. Slowly but surely it is pushing our arctic high back inland.
Barry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
Wife and I have spent a couple of days at each Vancouver Isle and Regina.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Brian James
| #
December 23, 2022Commentary: Whales on the Losing side of Wind Energy
Environmentalists want to crack down on the Maine lobster industry in the name of protecting endangered whales, but they turn a blind eye to the greater threat to whales from proposed offshore wind farms. The irony is almost as delicious as the lobster dinners at stake.
https://heartlanddailynews.com/2022/12/commentary-whales-on-the-losing-side-of-wind-energy/
https://heartlanddailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Right-whales.jpg
Reply
Tom
| #
The only real global warming occurs on Mercury and Venus. We may experience long term weather cycles, but man has nothing to do with it.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
If by “global warming” you mean the “heat trapping by CO2” kind, forget it. The process (or so-called threat) doesn’t apply to some planetary atmospheres and not to others. “Greenhouse” gases are a misnomer at least and a bare-faced fraud at worst. There is no “trapping.” There is no “greenhouse” in any atmospheric sense earthly or otherwise. Venus is warmer than Earth from the gravitational compression of an atmospheric gas 92 times denser than Earth’s. Its surface temperature can be calculated by the ideal gas law. Mining engineers know it as auto-compression and have a quick formula for calculating temperature in the atmosphere as well as in lower mine depths. The formula works with a planet with CO2 atmosphere or any other to get an answer within a degree of NASA’s best estimate. We are all tarred by the CAGWH brush, and can hardly think straight any more.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Tom Anderson,
“Mining engineers know it as auto-compression and have a quick formula for calculating temperature in the atmosphere as well as in lower mine depths.” Of course, the generally accepted understanding that nuclear fission is heating the interior of the Earth has nothing to do with the temperatures of the mine’s walls. Another alternative.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
Jerry — good fun! Nuclear fission bursting out all over?
The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is a good example of “accepted understanding.” (The more people who believe something, the less likely it is right.) The southern rim of the Grand Canyon’s north rim is about 1,000 feet (305 meters) higher in elevation than the south rim and it is about 9°F (5°C) cooler than the south rim. The bottom of the Canyon reaches temperatures 20-25°F (11-24°C) (bad ventilation?). Meteorologists can calculate ad track the adiabatic lapse rate of our atmosphere’s declining temperature gradient, surface to space. Josef Loschmidt hypothesized and found such a temperature gradient for static columns of fluid (gas or liquid) some time around 1850. Both Ludwig Boltzmann and James Clerk Maxwell disputed it for violating the laws of thermodynamics, but they and Loschmidt made adjustments of the laws to accommodate it. Loschmidt’s disagreement with Maxwell and Boltzmann was experimentally tested with results published in 2007 by R.W Graeff. confirming Loschmidt’s finding.
Finally, NASA’s milestone “U.S. Standard Atmosphere of 1976” confirmed calculated lapse rate values, surface to space, by observations with balloons, aerial flights and space shots. This 1976 edition is considered a “gold standard” of atmospheric data. The ideal gas law works even with less than ideal gases . And it works underground in mines, too.
Cheers.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
addednum, the canyon bottom: “20-25 degrees C warmer than the top.”
Tom Anderson
| #
Must be a sticky key … “11-24 deg. C and 20-25 deg. F.”
Typhus
| #
The Sun’s Solar output causes planetary body warming & cooling all throughout the solar system.
Reply