HomeArticleSome Thoughts On Climate Change

Some Thoughts On Climate Change

A new IPCC report written and edited by 91 scientists from 40 countries who analyzed more than 6,000 scientific studies says we’re looking at climate catastrophe as early as 2040 unless changes are made worldwide on a scale and speed which has no historic precedent. $54 trillion worth of damage is predicted to result from the 1.5 degree Celsius rise in global average temperatures we’re expected to be facing at that time if drastic changes are not made.

To be clear, when climate scientists talk about a 1.5 degree hike in global average temperatures, they are not saying that days will tend to be around 1.5 degrees warmer, which doesn’t sound bad at all. What they are saying is that there will be drastic heat spikes which elevate the overall average by 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) around the globe. This means moving into a world which sees sea levels rising and destroying coastal and island civilizations, it means mass famine due to destruction of crops from heat spikes in summer months, freezes in the winter and other extreme weather events, it means potential worldwide violence and predation as livable regions and resources become scarce on a rapidly changing planet.

This is coming off the back of the Trump administration’s seamless shift from claiming climate change is a Chinese hoax to saying it’s very real and very bad but there’s nothing that can be done about it. In a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Trump’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that a temporary freeze in fuel efficiency requirements for cars won’t be that big of a deal in terms of environmental impact because we’re headed toward a four degree Celsius increase in global average temperatures by the end of the century and avoiding that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”

This also follows a recent report about the frightening phenomenon of positive feedback loops, warming effects which make themselves worse, which climate science has been reluctant to examine closely and as a group until recently. An example of a positive feedback loop would be the release of methane trapped in thawing Siberian permafrost, which exacerbates warming because methane is a potent and fast-acting greenhouse gas, which then causes more thawing and the release of more methane. After examining just a few of these feedback loops (there are dozens), the paper concluded that it may be possible for the earth to hit a “hothouse” point of accelerated warming from which there can be no coming back, regardless of changes made in human industry or behavior.

Alarming new reports like these are pouring out constantly, and, contrary to the narrative promulgated by climate change deniers, they don’t generally get that much attention in the mainstream media. The British analysis website Media Lens just reported that the IPCC study was on the front of the BBC website for just a few hours before getting buried, despite its cataclysmic implications for our species. It’s much easier to get a reader interested in high-profile boogie men like Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump than it is to get them to look at data suggesting that they are staring down the barrel of an actual armageddon event in their lifetime, and the establishment powers which the corporate media serve have a vested interest in preserving the status quo. You are far more likely to see a news story about a celebrity or a politician when you switch on CNN than you are to see a report about the most important and pressing subject of our time.

This essay is guaranteed to get a lot of pushback from many of the conspiracy buffs who follow me, because they, unlike the Trump administration, still subscribe to the right-wing belief that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax being used by globalist elites to seize control of the world. And you know what? I get it. I will say that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that powerful plutocrats would be interested in using the concept of climate change to lock down control of human behavior and the world economy, and I will take it a step further and say it is a virtual certainty that there are plutocrats and their lackeys currently doing exactly that. When you’re talking about a shift in industry and energy worth tens of trillions of dollars and the potential to degrade national sovereignty with global regulations, you may be absolutely certain that there are extremely powerful people scheming to exploit it. Of course they are.

But that doesn’t mean it isn’t real. The science showing the warming effect of man’s carbon-releasing industrial activities was discovered in 1896 by a man named Svante Arrhenius. Nobody accused him of being a pawn in a globalist conspiracy; the scientific world simply noted his discovery with an “Oh cool yeah, that makes sense.” One of his colleagues even suggested setting fire to unused coal seams in order to increase global temperature, because back then milder winters sounded like a nice idea. It wasn’t until this line of scientific inquiry became threatening to the fossil fuel industry that it turned into a radically politicized debate propelled by Koch-funded research teams and Fox News.

I’ve been watching climate deniers for a long time. They used to deny climate change altogether, then sometime around the turn of the century they started admitting that yes, we are seeing a warming trend, but that doesn’t mean it’s caused by human behavior. Now I’m starting to see them admitting that yes, the earth is warming, and yes, it probably is anthropogenic, but that doesn’t mean it will necessarily be a bad thing. That’s the dumbest one yet, in my opinion. In response to the latest IPCC report I’ve seen a flood of comments saying “Yeah, yeah, you guys have been predicting an approaching climate disaster for decades,” despite the fact that the new report concludes that climate catastrophe appears to be approaching far faster than most had predicted.

I used to involve myself in the climate change debate very extensively, and I’ve yet to encounter an argument against it that couldn’t be thoroughly debunked with a little research. It’s one of those things like Russiagate or QAnon which has a lot of emotional appeal but doesn’t hold up well to critical thinking. It seems clear to me from all the goalpost-shifting and strawman arguments that the primary impulse behind climate denial is distrust of authority (which is always a good idea) and a basic desire to avoid the psychological discomfort of grappling with the reality that in a few short decades humanity could be extinct (which is just garden variety cowardice).

It’s always seemed so weird to me that conspiracy enthusiasts can understand nuance in so many other fields, but not this one. They generally understand that a false flag isn’t necessarily a completely manufactured event from top to bottom and can in fact be as simple as allowing someone to make an attack they’d been planning. They can grasp complex financial arrangements and understand that alliances and power structures don’t always move in the way your view of the world would predict, but the idea that anthropogenic climate change can be real at the same time as the existence of oligarchic plans to exploit it is something that rarely seems to occur to people.

Billions of large mammals digging up fuel sources from the earth and pouring their exhaust into the air for decades will necessarily change the environment. Of course it will. This should be obvious to everyone. Powerful manipulators who work constantly to control as much of the world as possible will necessarily try to make sure they grab up as much power as possible in a historically unprecedented global shift in energy and industry. Of course they will. This too should be obvious to everyone. Both are true. Both need to be dealt with. The fact that we are ruled by depraved oligarchs doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight climate change, it means we should overthrow the oligarchs so that they don’t find a way to herd us into a globalist Orwellian dystopia as they shore up power in the fight against climate change.

In fact, if seen in the right light, if you take both into account, you will see this is also a huge opportunity to spot the machinations of the plutocracy as it shuffles everything into place, and in the chaos, for the people to seize back control. The smooth running machine of the oligarchy will necessarily have to change shape to take advantage of the new industries and to keep in control. That’s a tricky dance and one they haven’t been planning for that long, so there will be many openings where the people can seep in like water and gum up the gears.

In order to do this, we must have as complete a roadmap as possible, and that means letting go of loyalties to partisan theories and taking a step back and engaging with all the data as it is. It can be done. It must be done. Our lives depend on it.

__________________________

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal,buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Liked it? Take a second to support Caitlin Johnstone on Patreon!

Latest comments

  • I’m disenchanted, as I don’t see Caitlin responding to her critical readership re Climate Change / Global Warming. She got zonked.

    Where is her argument, if she believes the critics are wrong? Did I miss this?

    Will she repeat the 6,000 scientists argument?

    She is just plowing ahead with her list of topics.

  • Not trying to pile on here, but this is important , and, as with so many other aspects of this discussion, either completely ignored or actively discredited by climate scientists. I have studied statistical analysis and modeling, so I understand what it means to be working with “dirty” data; i.e., data that have not been validated for accuracy or anomalies. As you may know, any analysis, even the simpler ones, will be fatally flawed if the data are not “cleansed.” This study, and many others, point out the near impossibility that climate analyses or predictions are even close to accurate since the data used are corrupt beyond belief. Any attempt by climate scientists to assert that these data are sufficient to support their conclusions is not worth his/her salt and cannot be trusted. As always, but for this subject, please know that I agree with your opinions, value what you do, and look forward to reading everything you write. In short, know that I am a fan and not someone who is trying to poke you in the eye with this. Thanks.
    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/independent-audit-exposes-the-fraud-in-global-warming-data/

    • Yes, yes, yes and one more yes for good measure. Alvin , what I find even more interesting and fascinating that the psychology still works on such a large audience especially after so many major events in history have been proven to be completely inaccurate, false, fabricated, lacking in logic and scientific evidence.

      • Yes, yes and yes. I, too, am both amazed and fearful at the numbers of people who blindly swallow the messages they are fed on so many issues, global warming included. When, why, how did we reach the point where so many people were content to believe what they were told without even trying to find the truth for themselves? Scary world we live in.

    • Absolutely right Alvin. I won’t be writing anything more for the time being, you have summed it up.

  • Dearest Caitlin,

    Please find a moment, or more, to visit:

    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/category/world-news/climate/

    Also, I recommend taking some time to peruse Martin’s blog. Much to learn there.

    Regards,
    Scott

  • Why would an environmentalist be a climate skeptic?

    Although it is wise to think globally, all plants and animals respond locally. Always! As Jim Steele demonstrates, there have been a worrisome series of very bad scientific papers that blame global warming on a species’ decline even though the maximum temperatures locally have declined since the 1930’s. As Jim Steele’s research on bird populations discovered, it was not climate change but landscape changes that had caused the wildlife declines and by acting locally the problem was remedied by restoring the watershed. After restoration, the bird populations rebounded and the landscape has remained moist and biologically productive despite the recent droughts caused La Niñas.

    Unfortunately, for researchers looking for funding, the joke in most university biology departments is “how can I link my research to global warming?” As a result funds that should be directed towards restoring habitats and watersheds have been diverted to speculative studies about future devastation from CO2. We have the power to make a more resilient environment by acting locally, but the focus on a global average temperature has set conservation science back years.

    DIG DEEPER CAITLIN!!

    http://landscapesandcycles.net

  • Check THIS out Caitlin:
    Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

    Jim Steele’s Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism examines how the inflated catastrophic claims of climate change has been misguiding conservation efforts, and misdirecting critical funding and thwarting attempts to build a more resilient environment. Jim Steele draws on 25 years of research and habitat restoration in California’s Sierra Nevada to provide thought provoking analyses that contrast the success of conservation science with the deceptive claims of global warming advocates.

    http://landscapesandcycles.net

  • https://youtu.be/Sbalx6UyAXY
    The Climate fraud at the New York Times.
    Ok, this will be my last post on this subject. The Grand Solar Minimum 2015-2055 . Prepair

  • https://youtu.be/9C7NPNsMoTk
    The Grand Solar Minimum from approximately 2015-2055
    Potato Crop Failure in Italy and Early Cold Temperatures

  • Caitlin, the sad reality is that there is a ‘solution’ to climate change, but it is being blocked by the very people who are most concerned by climate change.. It doesn’t require any new miracle inventions, we have it now, but it can also be dramatically improved. That technology is nuclear power. Nuclear power is the only technology that can scale to the size needed to power an advanced civilization. It is by far the safest major technology ever developed. The supply of energy is without limit (google ‘fast reactors’). The impact on the environment is negligible to the point of being unmeasurable.

    We have anti-Science zealots on the right that claim that burning fossil fuel is not altering the climate, and anti-Science zealots on the left that claim nuclear power is terribly dangerous, and environmentally destructive.

    • It’s telling that “Climate Change”, by definition, exempts nuclear power, one of the all-time most polluting technologies. Storage of waste nuclear fuel has not been solved. Any spillage will last 500,000 years due to absurd radiation half-lives.

    • https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2017-HTML.html
      The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2017 (HTML)
      Tuesday 12 September 2017
      Foreword by S. David Freeman
      “[T]his 2017 World Nuclear Industry Status Report is perhaps
      the most decisive document in the history of nuclear power.
      The report makes clear, in telling detail, that the debate is
      over. Nuclear power has been eclipsed by the sun and the wind.
      These renewable, free-fuel sources are no longer a dream or a
      projection — they are a reality that are replacing nuclear as
      the preferred choice for new power plants worldwide.
      […snip…]
      The value of this report is that this conclusion no longer
      relies on hope or opinion but is what is actually happening.
      In country after country the facts are the same. Nuclear power
      is far from dead but it is in decline and renewable energy is
      growing by leaps and bounds…. nowhere in the world, where
      there is a competitive market for electricity, has even one
      single nuclear power plant been initiated. Only where the
      government or the consumer takes the risks of cost overruns
      and delays is nuclear power even being considered…. since
      1997, worldwide, renewable energy has produced four times as
      many new kilowatt-hours of electricity than nuclear power.
      Maybe the Revolution has not been televised, but it is well
      underway. Renewable energy is a lower cost and cleaner, safer
      alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power.
      The world no longer needs to build nuclear power plants to
      avoid climate change and certainly not to save money. If you
      have any doubt about that fact please read the World Nuclear
      Industry Status Report 2017.”

      • The efficacy of solar technology will be significantly diminished during the Eddy Grand Solar Minimum.When Co2 emissions as the cause of climate change/global warming is unmasked as the fraud it is,coal will again become the cheap/reliable source of our energy requirements.Japan shows the way with 44 coal fired power stations to be built by 2028(8 already completed).

        • Haha! That’s funny. Tiny Japan. BFD. The important countries in the world, going forward, are in the process of abandoning coal, and a damn good thing. Coal is awful, and not just because of CO2. Mercury, particulate pollution, etc. But perhaps above all, solar pv is now actually CHEAPER than coal in between the 23rd parallels, which happens to be where most of the people on the planet live. India has been abandoning coal massively for this reason; IT MAKES NO ECONOMIC SENSE. Solar pv is cheaper. And better in every other respect.

          It is positively bizarre how the climate denialists apologize for obviously-filthy and unredeemable fossil fuels — on their way out as the horrid 19th century throwbacks that they are — as though they were big investors in Exxon. Heck, maybe they ARE big investors in Exxon. Whatever. It is fine. They continue to discredit and make idiots of themselves, and it gets worse (better!) every year.

          • Finally some rationality! Thanks Alan!!

            • Everyone wants clean energy and a pollution free world.

              We don’t need a low-quality lie that favors nuclear power to get there.

        • Haha! That’s funny. Tiny Japan. BFD. The important countries in the world, going forward, are in the process of abandoning coal, and a damn good thing. Coal is awful, and not just because of CO2. Mercury, particulate pollution, etc. But perhaps above all, solar pv is now actually CHEAPER than coal in between the 23rd parallels, which happens to be where most of the people on the planet live. India has been abandoning coal massively for this reason; IT MAKES NO ECONOMIC SENSE. Solar pv is cheaper. And better in every other respect.

          You know, I would LOVE to advocate for us to befoul the world with neurotoxic mercury and COPD- and asthma-causing air particulates from coal-burning. Really I would! The problem, though, is that we just CAN’T AFFORD IT! It is a luxury that, alas, is beyond our means. I deeply regret having to inform you of this. lol

          It is bizarre how the climate denialists and conservatards apologize for obviously-filthy and unredeemable fossil fuels — on their way out as the horrid 19th century abomination that they are — as though they were big investors in Exxon. Heck, maybe they ARE big investors in Exxon. Whatever. It is fine. They continue to discredit and make idiots of themselves, and it gets worse (better!) every year.

          Maybe next year the conservatards will want us to go back to burning whale oil, or twigs in caves. After all, that would be the conservative, traditional thing to do. Right? lol

          • Whoops. Sorry for the double! CJ.com reported that it did not go through, so I tweaked and re-submitted. oh well.

            • Solar technology will be of little use with the declining TSI and increasing cloud cover during the intensifying Eddy GSM.

              • GSM = No Big Deal. Look it up. It is real, but will have little impact. Maybe will slow down warming SLIGHTLY.
                No, you are not possessed of exclusive knowledge, unknown to a whole generation of very smart engineers and planners who are building out solar pv at a terrific rate.

        • Sandra Johnson, do you really think the GSM is a secret that only you know? Only you and the blogs sponsored by big oil (from where you seem to get your information and think are credible). Do you really think scientists and every university and research institute on the planet are not aware of this and have not factored it in?

          

Peer-reviewed research (not manipulative articles on blogs sponsored by big oil) has looked at exactly this question – how will the GSM affect other warming trends – and found that it indeed has a slight mitigating effect, but the effect is tiny and hardly puts a dent in the our overall march to climate breakdown and devastation to all life on earth. 



          Climate breakdown and devastation that is fuelled by the mad (and childish) “Growth is God” mantra that we hear everywhere 24/7. A mantra that no one dares to question for fear of disrupting the profit gods and sounding too ‘extreme’, even though this unquestioned immature mindset and this suicidal economic system lead us straight to planetary misery and then extinction.

          
When you look at it, it is really a mad economic system in which pollution, and disruption of the climate and destruction of the life support systems of the planet, are considered ‘externalities’ and are simply not part of the equation. Only profit is part of the equation in this mad system, the planet and living things simply don’t factor in.. All of us are going to pay a huge price for this madness. 


          • Sandra Johnsone, If you are genuinely interested in learning the objective scientific facts about this subject, without any politics or attacks or arrogance or fluff, then I’d recommend having a look at the youtube channel potholer54. 

            He has a really excellent playlist called ‘Climate change explained, and the myths debunked’ that explains really well the basics of the science. 
 


            Lastly, I also highly recommend the excellent book called ‘merchants of doubt’ (in paper or ebook form) which details exactly how certain people and interest groups (among them energy utility companies and fossil fuel giants) spend huge amounts of money (about 2.5 billion dollars on last count) to deliberately spread misinformation and make it appear as if the vast consensus among scientists and virtually every university and research institute on the planet regarding what the data overwhelmingly shows us, make it appear as if there is doubt and uncertainty about it (there isn’t). 


            And why do they do that? Because they are raking in obscene amounts of profits in the current fossil fuel system, and will do anything to make sure this gravy train doesn’t stop (even at the cost of destroying the life support systems on the planet and human extinction.. that is how deranged they have become with their insatiable hunger for more profits)

            
I submit to you that many have fallen victim to this deliberate obfuscation and disinformation campaign. 


  • https://youtu.be/1H7uSCA_ZSE
    The Grand Solar Minimum from approximately 2015-2055
    Weather extremes and crop losses .

    • Ray, do you really think the GSM is a secret that only you know? Only you and the blogs sponsored by big oil (from where you seem to get your information and think are credible). Do you really think scientists and every university and research institute on the planet are not aware of this and have not factored it in? 



      Peer-reviewed research (not manipulative articles on blogs sponsored by big oil) has looked at exactly this question – how will the GSM affect other warming trends – and found that it indeed has a slight mitigating effect, but the effect is tiny and hardly puts a dent in the our overall march to climate breakdown and devastation to all life on earth. Climate breakdown and devastation that is fuelled by the mad (and childish) “Growth is God” mantra that we hear everywhere 24/7. A mantra that no one dares to question for fear of disrupting the profit gods and sounding too ‘extreme’, even though this unquestioned immature mindset and this suicidal economic system lead us straight to planetary misery and then extinction. 


      When you actually look at it, it is really a mad economic system in which pollution, and disruption of the climate and destruction of the life support systems of the planet, are considered ‘externalities’ and are simply not part of the equation. Only profit is part of the equation in this mad system, the planet and living things simply don’t factor in.. All of us are going to pay a huge price for this insanity. 


      
 If you are genuinely interested in learning the objective scientific facts about this subject, without any politics or attacks or arrogance or fluff, then I’d recommend having a look at the youtube channel potholer54. 

      He has a really excellent playlist called ‘Climate change explained, and the myths debunked’ that explains really well the basics of the science. 
 


      Lastly, I also highly recommend the excellent book called ‘merchants of doubt’ (in paper or ebook form) which details exactly how certain people and interest groups (among them energy utility companies and fossil fuel giants) spend huge amounts of money (about 2.5 billion dollars on last count) to deliberately spread misinformation and make it appear as if the vast consensus among scientists and virtually every university and research institute on the planet regarding what the data overwhelmingly shows us, make it appear as if there is doubt and uncertainty about it (there isn’t). 


      And why do they do that? Because they are raking in obscene amounts of profits in the current fossil fuel system, and will do anything to make sure this gravy train doesn’t stop (even at the cost of destroying the life support systems on the planet and human extinction.. that is how deranged they have become with their insatiable hunger for more profits)

      
I submit to you that many have fallen victim to this deliberate obfuscation and disinformation campaign. 


  • Hi everyone
    I’m what some may call a climate change denier but I’m just a sceptic, that is I see a flawed model of the earths weather systems being upheld as fact/gospel rather than supposition/hypothesis.

    The reason being that Science in general is a flawed concept… and that concept is responsible for quite a lot of the crap that ourselves and our planet are currently dealing with.

    The scientific vanguard now understand that the Chinese model of Ying/Yang relates to the electric current thru our bodies…something that western science can now measure.

    Western Cosmologists now measure vast electric currents in space. Newton and Einstein had no recourse to this info when thy proposed their theories.

    Likewise the mainstream scientific weather community giving their dyer outlooks, …. they work off a model which is…basically crap.

    • “I see a flawed model of the earths weather systems”

      Fine. it does not matter what you think. Even if there were only a 10% chance that mainstream climate science is correct, that we are facing a dire existential emergency, THAT ALONE would be enough to justify drastic action. And that is apart from the fact that the whole petro-chemical infrastructure is poisoning the world and causing mass deaths (air and other pollution) by virtue of heavy metals and organic toxins unrelated to CO2. And THAT is apart from the documented fact that the fossil fuel industry is subsidized to the extent of $FIVE TRILLION$ PER YEAR (see the IMF report from a few years ago), and is acting as a terrible drag on the world economy — reason enough to dismantle it and move to renewables, even WITHOUT CO2, WITHOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, WITHOUT THE AIR AND OTHER POLLUTION that I just mentioned. Get it? Fossil fuels are SHIT, and we have to get off them YESTERDAY, climate change or no. Get it now?

  • It’s amazing to peruse web sites that point out the lies of the politicians and the deep state yet fully buy into the Man Made Climate Change, or AGW. as pushed by government and the UN. People fail to realize that when they quote IPCC gloom and doom they quote the Summery for Policy Makers which is political document written by and for policy makers and not the actual report which is far tamer. Obama and his cabinet all said they wouldn’t have a “denier” working for them and any scientist not agreeing with their dictats was doing “junk science”. In this climate no government employee is going to give grants to a skeptic so they have to go elsewhere for funding. One of those getting money from fossil companies is sun scientist Dr Willie Soon. When confronted about this DR Soon admits it and asks the questioner “show me where my science is wrong.” All he gets in silence. If you look at the those in the forefront of AGW the vast majority are non scientists like Al Gore or Bill Nye while the major faces of the skeptics are real scientists like Dr’s Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, Richard Linzen, the late Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Don Easterbrook, the late Vincent Gray, John Christy, and many many more. The claim 97% of scientists believe man made climate change is real is a joke that suckers buy into without checking. Here’s how it works. They take a scientific database of PAPERS and cull out all the relevant papers to climate change, global warming etc. Of those they cull out the PAPERS with a definite opinion and work the percentages. They do not give their criteria on how they rate these PAPERS pro or con. All of these 97 and 99% numbers are all figured the same way. The most famous and widely quoted 97% “study” done by cartoonist John Cook used a scientific database of 12,000 PAPERS and based their 97% on as few as 48 PAPERS or as many as 168, depending who does the analysis. Look it up and ask yourself if man made climate change was real why the big lie and deception. You also don’t hear of the petition project where 33,000 scientists and professionals put their names to paper saying AGW is not real. Don’t bother looking for the same of those believing in AGW as you won’t find one. Do your research, not just a quick look, and you’ll realize the skeptics are right and why they can’t get published or printed in the media or invited to panels and the AGW true believers are afraid to debate them. As far as those people who say “we see it with our own eyes” you’re only seeing weather. Climate is judged over multiple decades not a couple of years. According to recent reports the recent IPCC report, the real one not the propaganda laden Summary for Policy Makers, extreme weather events are not increasing. So far this year in the US we are set for a record low in tornado’s and have been setting that record multiple times in recent years.

    • A couple of years ago we had a warm winter thanks to El Nino. I remember one guy from Canada ranting about how this proves man made climate change was real. His selective memory forgot that a year or 2 before it was so cold in this area the whole of the Great Lakes were an almost unheard of 97% frozen due to the cold. Ice on Lake Superior, which the AGW crowd claimed was abnormally warm, wasn’t completely gone until late June or early July.

    • It’s good to see some sense on here when it comes to the climate scam, i love most of the work Johnstone does but when it comes to this particular scam, she has bought into it hook, line and sinker, very sad. It always amuses me that the people who buy into this scam always fail to recognize the changing climates on other planets, recorded and documented, i suppose there must be people driving around in their SUV’s on those planets causing climate change 🙂 I hope Johnstone does some proper research into it, by reading the work of Dr Judith Curry and others and stops spreading climate fear propaganda.

      • Same here. I love almost everything else that Caitlin writes, but not this. It is nearly impossible to support any “scientific” conclusion about AGW that forcefully objects to any other possible conclusion and aggressively shuts down debate. How many times have you seen AGW proponents debate deniers? They don’t, because they know their conclusions will not stand up to scrutiny. After Climategate, we all knew the thing was a scam, and concerted efforts to shut down debate and to rehabilitate the dogma have failed.

      • “the people who buy into this scam always fail to recognize the changing climates on other planets, recorded and documented”

        LB, please tell us what the weather is like on other planets, since you claim it is ‘recorded and documented’. And which planets are these?

        And more to the point how is that relevant to ours?

        • I will gladly provide you with plenty of evidence that has been recorded and documented, provided in Andrew Johnson’s free book (PDF format), i have suspicion that you will ignore it though as all climate alarmists like to ignore evidence and facts – http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Climate%20Change%20and%20Global%20Warming-Exposed-6×9.pdf

          • Thanks for this link which leads also to scientific base for the hydrogen-carbon system. That petroleum products are found in the earth below the depth of biomass. That methane etc is formed in the mantle of the earth, as the building blocks of petroleum.

            • You are very welcome, Andrew Johnson is one of the best researchers out there imo, on a whole host of important topics.

  • Caitlin,
    please be positive not negative,
    try to find peace within, try meditation,yoga etc…
    you will only find the truth by looking inward,
    all you need is within you, search and you will find
    scientists, media, researchers are just noise
    tune them out, and tune in
    all the best to you and yours

  • The only problem is the world is NOT warming,it’s cooling.We have already entered the Eddy Grand Solar Minimum and the extreme weather is not due to CO2 emissions but the cyclical activity(at this time the reduced activity)of the sun.The scientific and historical evidence is there in abundance.Do your own research.John L Casey,David DuByne,Ice Age Farmer,Oppenhiemer Ranch Project.Even NASA has started commentary on reduced sunspot activity.

  • Whatever the scientific truth of the matter is, restricting carbon fuel use simply will not work. It equates to a seriously lowered standard of living, and that simply will never be accepted. Even if humans are relegated to narrow inland strips in the upper and lower latitudes, with wildfires and tornadoes howling on all sides, they will still grub out the last seam of coal and burn the last tree, because it’s cheaper than the alternatives. Would a worldwide totalitarian state guarding carbon and enforcing an ideology of sacrifice solve the problem? We don’t have to look far back in history for the outcomes of either totalitarianism (death, poverty, revolt) or end-of-world scenarios (nothing), so how are we going to convince enough people to accept the former over the latter? Being right (this time?) doesn’t matter, because humans will continue to breed to capacity, facilitated by the cheapest energy sources. If scientists find a problem, it’s up to them to find solutions, because neither the pragmatic masses nor the power-hungry elites will do anything differently than they have before. Your previous post, “A radical change in human behavior away from its patterns of oppression, exploitation, war and ecocide will necessarily involve a drastic transformation in humanity’s relationship with thought” is, indeed, what it would take, and I have trouble believing this is possible.

  • This is an addendum to my last comment below and the reply to it.
    ..
    Human animals created smartphones. AFAIK, no other animal on planet earth has done that. Human animals can solve complex problems. What is ailing humanity is NOT a complex problem.
    ..
    It is a fact that if the 3.8 billion women of the world, women of all ages, were to for any reason freely decide to not ever have children, in 50 years — when new-born girls would reach their upper child-bearing age of approximately 50 — humanity’s fate would be sealed.  Were women to make that decision today, literally the last person of the present race of 7+ billion human beings may very well be dead in less than 100 years from today. In 2018, humanity extinct. During humanity’s last 100 years of approaching certain extinction, absolutely ALL of  humanity’s ongoing environmental impact on the earth, and social effect on each other (especially in densely-packed cities such as Hong Kong), would IMMEDIATELY start to decrease and eventually cease (but of course at least some of humanity’s environmental legacy would remain).
    ..
    “In between” the wildly-expanding economy and population of humanity’s past (and perhaps present) and the hypothetical scenario of women deciding to no longer have children, humanity has literally UNLIMITED CHOICE about not only the size of its future population, but, infinitely more importantly, the LIFESTYLE humanity is thus allowed or constrained to enjoy and the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT humanity has on the biosphere.
    ..
    Fortunately, we have very real, relatively isolated “first world” examples of human reproductive extremes.  Japan is noteworthy among them:
    h…ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan
    If nothing else, read the brief demographic projections. 
    ..
    In Japan’s case, a temporary increase in the percentage of elderly people in the present population, only until a lower stable population is reached, can be adequately borne by Japan’s increasingly-automated society.
    “Japan Creates Drywall-Installing Robot To Defuse Demographic Time Bomb”
    h….ttps://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-02/japan-created-drywall-installing-robot-defuse-demographic-time-bomb
    ..
    Remarkably, the Japanese government’s ongoing, unique-among-all-nations, “decision” to NOT maintain or increase Japan’s population by importing people is a potentially important one for the human race outside of Japan, but it remains to be seen if or how long its position can be maintained politically or economically.
    ..
    Japan is not alone with its demographic “problem”. As far as the Canadian Elite are concerned, the economically distressed, deeply in debt Canadian people are NOT having enough babies, so the “Canadian” government, the supposed representative of those deeply in debt Canadian people, has a very simple plan to keep the “everything bubble” well inflated — import 400,000 people each and every year from now to eternity:
    h….ttp://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/chris-alexander-announces-tory-leadership-bid-wants-canada-to-boost-immigration-to-400000-a-year
    ..
    There were 3,992,720 immigrants imported into Canada from 2000 to 2015. The estimated population of Canada in 2015 was 35,749,600.
    ..
    What is the Big Business-controlled Canadian government’s plan to deal with all of the myriad of problems created by such high immigration? Cut corporate taxes, cut government services and cut the number of government employees. Let the “free market” determine everything ……………. EXCEPT the number of immigrants that Big Business wants in order to keep labor costs low and the housing market/industry from collapsing. For that, “We” need a plan!
    h…….ttps://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2014/05/encouraging-long-term-prosperity-economic-growth.html
    ..
    “May 23, 2014 — Toronto — Today, Canada’s Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander met with business leaders in Canada’s financial capital to discuss plans for a new immigrant investor pilot program that will make significant investments in Canada and fuel the growth of our economy.
    ..
    The government is seeking advice from business leaders across the country on the key elements of a new Immigrant Investor Venture Capital pilot led by Industry Minister James Moore. Today’s meetings in Toronto are the first of a series of stakeholder roundtables that will be held in Halifax, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver over the coming weeks.
    ..
    These roundtables will advance the government’s proposal in Economic Action Plan 2014 to terminate the outdated federal Immigrant Investor Program (IIP) and Federal Entrepreneur (EN) Program, eliminate their longstanding application backlogs, and create new innovative pilot programs that meet Canada’s economic needs.
    ………………….”
    ..
    Just exactly HOW is the Canadian government going to reduce “Canada’s” total greenhouse gas emissions and reduce water pollution and reduce its energy consumption and reduce hospital emergency room waiting times, etc. etc. while at the same time wildly INCREASING “Canada’s” population, come hell or high water or human-race-eradicating high temperature? Not a clue. The government will just wing it and hope for the best.
    ..
    Canada and Japan are not alone with their “demographic problem”. Germany has in mind a similar solution to Canada’s. Just import more people.
    h..ttps://www.dw.com/en/germanys-new-immigration-laws-open-door-for-skilled-labor/a-45734442
    ..
    To sum up, whenever the citizens of a nation freely, naturally decide to have few enough children that will cause the population to DECREASE, the Elite in those countries will countermand their decision by importing more people, thereby causing INCREASED population/economic growth. This is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED in the present economic system and has been for at least 200 years and THAT is why the human population has grown so dramatically over those 200 years, NOT because human beings had the urge to have unprotected sex or make as many babies as humanly possible.
    ..
    But how much of what I have written is mentioned by anybody who is allowed to teach in a classroom or speak on the MSM when it comes to all discussions financial or socioeconomic? None of it, except to say that “Japan is a ticking time bomb”. A public discourse and the resulting certain public debate about these things is either not allowed, never thought of, or regarded as so wildly outlandish or unreasonable that one literally can not hear or read about them unless one makes a deliberate effort to do so. Instead, what is served up 24/7 is “Growth is God”, period. And, as a result, now humanity is staring certain extinction right in the face.

    • I made a mistake above. I should have said “In 2118, humanity extinct.” instead of “In 2018, humanity extinct.”

    • Very well said Ishkabibble. The “Growth is God” mantra is leading us to extinction, yet no one dares to say anything about it for fear of sounding too ‘extreme’. It is much better to not be extreme, to be a “reasonable” and respectable citizen and just march on towards extinction. That is so much better than questioning our economic system, god forbid.

  • Brilliant example (because of it’s transparent structure) of Johnstone’s mission of pulling the far-left over, a little at a time, to far-right viewpoints. Johnstone acknowledges the 1896 discovery of carbon-releasing dangers by Arrhenius, noting, “Nobody accused him of being a pawn in a globalist conspiracy,” and then acknowledges, “It wasn’t until this line of scientific inquiry became threatening to the fossil fuel industry that it turned into a radically politicized debate propelled by Koch-funded research teams and Fox News.” Then she boosts her faux far-left credentials with, “…I’ve yet to encounter an argument against it [climate change] that couldn’t be thoroughly debunked with a little research”

    Only once she hooks you in with comfortable left-wing talking points, she begins revealing her true (and I’m told fully compensated) mission from her former astrologist den in Australia, all of course now sans facts or historical notes to back them:

    (1) “a false flag isn’t necessarily a completely manufactured event from top to bottom and can in fact be as simple as allowing someone to make an attack they’d been planning.”

    (2) “In fact, if seen in the right light, if you take both into account, you will see this is also a huge opportunity to spot the machinations of the plutocracy as it shuffles everything into place, and in the chaos, for the people to seize back control.”

    (3) “In order to do this, we must have as complete a roadmap as possible, and that means letting go of loyalties to partisan theories”

    Given that Johnstone’s audience is comprised of far-left followers susceptible to conspiracy theories, what then does her advice of “letting go of loyalties to partisan theories” mean? She’s NOT pleading for the far-right to reconsider it’s dismissal of climate change, rather she’s ultimately encouraging the far-left to consider and ultimately adopt the far-right position. The true goal: not to save the planet, my friends, but rather to muddle the discussion, fracture the left, and pull left-leaning conspiracy theorists over to the far-right perspective.

    • What a cranky, stupid post.

      “Given that Johnstone’s audience is comprised of far-left followers”

      It IS?! Coulda fooled me. Seems like the opposite. This place is over-run with climate-deniers and right-wing anti-globalists (i.e. the paranoid, anti-communist, anti-U.N. types).

      “She’s NOT pleading for the far-right to reconsider it’s dismissal of climate change”

      Yes she is. Clearly. Not just “reconsider”, but REJECT. And of course she is correct.

      “she’s ultimately encouraging the far-left to consider and ultimately adopt the far-right position”

      She is asking the left to consider that current carbon taxation and perhaps some other grand schemes may be playing into the hands of monied interests — entirely possible and, indeed, as she points out, LIKELY. And btw I don’t think that that totally invalidates carbon taxation, for example. Nothing of sufficient magnitude can be done without “playing into the hands” of SOME capitalistic enterprise or sector; that’s just the nature of the reality in the world today.

  • Just: thank you, Caitlin! That’s so needed.

    It’s science, friends. It’s not policy but science. It should be policy. And it must. But it is not yet, unfortunately.

    Guys, go to a university and talk to the people doing research there! They will be annoyed already because of all the propaganda denying their results. But if you’re polite you’re probably getting an answer anyway. And you will see Caitlin is just right.

    • Thank you, Caitlin!

  • Ah CLIMATE CHANGE & GLOBAL WARMING!

    I just love this…

    Don’t forget to start saving because THEY are going to need more TAXES so that “we” can avoid the warming!

    Go on… start saving!

  • Caitlin,
    Another excellent column.
    I am happy to see you fully acknowledge the use to which our oligarchy will put any response to climate change.
    I don’t know what to do with this one. On the one hand, one narrow shard of our rudderless elites is more than happy to just keep on heating up the planet in alliance with the likes of our delightful friends in Saudi Arabia and run the risk of triggering unpredictable non-linear response. Another part of our rudderless elites seems to have decided that the only way to out-shout the ‘pump it all’ faction is to try to panic ordinary folks into a stampede that under the current social system will surely be fully used to concentrate yet more power and wealth in the hands of those least morally capable of exercising it well. Many of these would be stampeders have genuinely good intentions, but we live in an age in which any social activity that does not start from fighting against concentrated power will be used to further concentrate power, regardless of anyone’s good intentions.
    On the third hand, well one needs a Buddhist deity to have a third hand and as you have pointed out, staying sane in this age does require inner work too. Some way to escape from the meme pollution out there.
    It turns out that it is so very much easier to manipulate what people think everyone else thinks than to get inside people’s own minds. That is how all the connectedness of the social media age has isolated us more than ever.
    Keep up the good fight.

  • I’ve been reading all the data, and there are parts of the story you do not address. I believe climate CHANGE is real, GLOBAL WARMING is not. First of all, the idea that that carbon dioxide is BAD is ludicrous; the rain forests and taigas are flourishing because of it and pumping out oxygen for US to breath, so that can go by the wayside. Also, even though we have periods of drought and excessive heat in some areas, there have conversely been record cold and ice accumulation in others (read some of the data from Dr. Mark Sircus) as a result of solar minimum. One cannot discount the evidence of solar cycles and their cosmic effects. YES, we MUST stop using polluting fossil fuels, but we must also stop the toxic effects of endless wars and nuclear disasters (Fukushima, etc.). We must demand that technologies discovered decades ago by the likes of Tesla can be utilized to solve our energy problems. And the most obvious solutions are the ground-up innovations from third world countries. Why are we not building homes with built in solar panels that fund the larger grid instead of the backwards way we do it now….big banks of expensive plants that barely meet the sucking zone of large cities? Why do we not seriously invest in revitalizing railways? Why are we not investigating the sciences of magnetics and gravitational pull as well as the zero point technologies that have been leaking out of the corners of garage inventors and DARPA? Oh, that’s right, the controllers want all the goodies for themselves. Oh, I forgot to mention geoengineering, the blowing into the atmosphere gobs of lip-shmacking toxic crap that they now tell us is for our own good because it will stop global warming in its tracks! Too bad it also kills trees and makes us sick! Anyway, all of it together points to the latest sick and toxic social experiment gone wrong. The only way it changes is if, as you mentioned in a previous article, we WAKE UP! And when we do, we must walk away from the system and create our own communities according to what we know is right in our hearts, putting all our time and energy towards that which is truly GOOD, SUSTAINABLE, and does not involve COERCION or FORCE or VIOLENCE. THAT is how we change things! (Sorry I didn’t cite everything, but time is short….you know.)

  • Bernie or Bust: Pioneers of Electoral Revolt contains a climate preservation strategy which requires a revolution in our consumption habits. It would also serve as a resistance strategy and undermine the President.

    http://bernieorbust.info

  • It took humanity roughly nine thousand years to increase its total number from 2.4 million to 115 million; two thousand years to increase its population from 115 million to 295 million; six hundred years to reach a population of 553 million in the year 1600. Two hundred and fifty years later, in 1850, the human population had risen to 1,262 million (1.2 billion).
    ..
    Then things get very interesting.
    ..
    It took human beings only fifty years to increase their number from 1.2 billion in 1850 to 1.7 billion in 1900 — that is, 500 million people added to the population in only 50 years. Then, astonishingly, it took only an additional SIXTY FIVE years for human beings to double their population from 1.7 billion in 1900 to 3.3 billion in 1965.
    ..
    Apparently there still weren’t enough people. All it took was another FORTY TWO years to once again DOUBLE the human population from 3.3 billion in 1965 to 6.7 billion in 2007.
    ..
    Finally, in only the last ELEVEN years of human history, human beings have somehow managed to add another 900+ MILLION people to planet earth’s fragile biosphere – a “mission” that once took over ELEVEN THOUSAND years to “accomplish”. That’s NINE HUNDRED CITIES of over 1 million people each since 2007!. Well done, human beings!
    h…………ttp://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
    ..
    Here’s the question that humanity MUST consciously and carefully answer PDQ. Was the astronomical increase in the human population the “goal” of the human species and it developed an economic system that would allow it to accomplish that goal, or did the ancient “economic systems” LITERALLY FORCE that increase? Is the PRESENT DAY “system”, whatever label you want to put on it, CONTINUING to literally force an increase in the human population?

    • Uman animals are like all other animals… They reproduce till ∞ as long they have the resources!

      Of course that a closed system can’t sustain so many animals!

      If the animals living in the land called “China” and “India” were all living by the USA medium standard (exclude the miserable and poor from the math!) then the ecosystems were already unable to sustain such a Herd! That’s why powerful groups of people (nations) are always trying to prevent other large groups of people from achieving their standard.

      In the end its going to be a nice show to contemplate!

  • What an amazing example of selective skepticism of just another tax raising propaganda lie. Yes, Caitlin, the elite are lying about “Climate Change” just as they lie about anything that will increase their power. But because this lie will allegedly save the planet, through the always reliable increase in taxes, and Trump doesn’t buy it, it’s irresistible to the progressive at heart.

    • Taxes do NOT fund federal government spending. #LearnMMT

      https://youtu.be/toN51dp055Y

    • It is true that the elites are lying about climate change. Mostly in an attempt to obfuscate it, deny it, introduce unjustified doubts (FUD), etc. They’ve been doing this for DECADES. The most concentrated centers of power and money, like the big petrol companies, have been determined to stall or halt climate awareness. Here’s just one recent example:

      https://theenergymix.com/2018/10/07/saudi-arabia-made-best-efforts-to-stall-ipcc-science-report/ — SAUDI ARABIA MADE BEST EFFORTS TO STALL IPCC SCIENCE REPORT

      You will note also that the IPCC and other official bodies have been CONSISTENTLY WRONG in their predictions. Climate change (and related events) has been happening MUCH FASTER than they predicted. The IPCC and other bodies are to some extent political animals, trying to tell the truth while at the same time staying within “reason” (i.e. the obfuscatory agenda of the elites and oligarchs). It is an impossible bind. If they tell the truth, then they sound like “alarmists” who object to capitalism and its insane and ruinous growth-uber-alles ethos.

      Note to climate denialists: your days are numbered, and the number is small. I give it 5 years, max, before climate denial will be completely and permanently discredited, like flat-earth-ism.

      • I just wrote: “The IPCC and other bodies are to some extent political animals, trying to tell the truth while at the same time staying within “reason””

        Here’s an video snippet dealing with exactly that, in an interview with Kevin Anderson:
        https://youtu.be/PkB0YyXnzAU?t=662
        “IPCC constrains its policy advice to fit neatly within the current economic model”

        i.e.: the IPCC is apologizing for capitalism and acting as polite lap-dog to the elites and oligarchs.

        The elites are DESPERATE to prevent the population from questioning capitalism, a system that is obviously destroying the planet while keeping billions living in misery.

  • Thank you.

  • The hardest thing for me to grasp is that the same people who “trust science” and “scientists” when it comes to designing and making their nuclear bombs, or their replacement heart valve, or the medication they depend on everyday to stay alive, somehow can’t quite bring themselves to believe in “science” and “scientists” – including a global scientific consensus – on the causes and impacts of our changing climate. It would seem that some serious cognitive dissonance must be in play, but I sense very little among those who blithely write off climate change as a hoax. Having lived in both the Arctic and now southern California, I can say that personally I don’t need a group of scientists to tell me that climate change is occurring. It is rather all too frighteningly clear.

    • Help me.

      Why is the Atlantic Ocean sea level rising at a STEADY 2.8mm/year since 1850?

      https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750

      Yet you observe an accelerating rise in your region?

        • Thanks for that fine page of “Hunger Stones” now being seen.

      • Typical bullshit which you could spend fucking FIVE MINUTES researching and learning that it is bullshit.

        https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise
        “sea level is … rising faster now than it has in the past 6,000 years. The oldest tide gauges and coastal sediment preserved beneath swamps and marshes show that sea level began to rise around 1850, which is right around the time people started burning coal to propel steam engine trains, and it hasn’t stopped since. The climate likely started warming as a part of a natural cycle, but the accelerated warming in the last two hundred years or so is due to a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The resulting rise in sea level is likely twice what we would have seen without the increase in greenhouse gasses due to human activities.
        Today, global sea level is 5-8 inches (13-20 cm) higher on average than it was in 1900. Between 1900 and 2000, global sea level rose between 0.05 inches (1.2 millimeters) and 0.07 inches (1.7 millimeters) per year on average. In the 1990s, that rate jumped to around 3.2 millimeters per year. In 2016 the rate was estimated to be 3.4 millimeters per year, and it is expected to jump higher by the end of the century. Scientists with the Intergovernmental Project on Climate Change predict that global sea level will rise between 0.3 and 1 meter by 2100. Eventually, sea level is expected to rise around 2.3 meters for every degree (°C) that climate change warms the planet, and Earth has warmed by 1°C already. ”
        END QUOTE

        Same, by the way, with the “Grand Solar MInimum” bullshit touted on this page. Look it up, for god’s sake. Yes, it is real. AND it will have very little effect.

  • Debt/credit-based ‘money’ that requires perpetual growth to keep from collapsing. Imperial aspirations. Biophysical limits. Diminishing returns. Overshoot and collapse.

    Infinite growth on a finite planet, what could possibly go wrong?

    • Exactly right, Steve!

  • Caitlin : Weapons Of Mass Destruction / The War on Terror/ The War on Drugs / 9/11 / The Boston Bombing / Sandy Hook / The Gulf of Tonkin / 2008 Financial Crisis. On and on and on we go.
    Now we have the next con, Global Warming , name change, Climate Change. And yes there is Climate Change, but sad to say since the truth is always suppressed by the Globalists , it will be to late for millions around the globe caught up in the carbon tax lie. Fascinating how after so many lies, people still are so easily led even though the evidence points to the complete direction. The real scientists have published their research in the science journals around the globe for several years now and of course the paid for play so called climate experts refuse to debate or have anything to do with the untampered data. Having said that, now the meat on the bone.
    The Grand Solar Minimum from approximately 2015-2055 is apron our planet. The last event was The Maunder Minimum from 1645-1715. The time period during the largest amount of witch burnings blaming them for the terrible crop losses and the period of the Themes freezing over in Great Britain.
    Earth goes through cycles of cold and hot controlled by the sun and the cycle of sun spots and the effect of solar radiation . As the amount of sun spots diminish and this year alone there has been over 150 days without , the earth starts to cool. But there is side effects during this event that has been recorded down through history. Extreme drought and extreme cold events take place while the increase in volcanic activity also takes place . The experts have been looking into this for years and believe it may be the effect of the magnetic fields of the planet and the change in the sun’s activity. Interesting side note, when ice core samples taken from the poles and glaciers showed an increase in dust levels during specific time periods , bingo, volcanic dust which circled the globe dissipating the amount of sun light and effecting crop loss and cooling.
    Already this year we have witnessed massive crop losses from drought and early and late cold weather ,one being the loss of one third of the lambs in New Zealand. We are well in to crop failures around the globe already and you will start to see inflation in food prices and lack of supply start to rear its ugly head. Just yesterday I noticed an article on the rapid increase of sea ice in the Canadian arctic and the normal supply of fuel and winter supplies cannot be delivered by barge even with the biggest ice breaker in Canada. But the climate scientists will tell you the ice is melting and we are all going to be underwater .
    Anyways, one of the leading scientists on this subject is Valentina Zharkova. And when and if you do your research it will rapidly become aware of the propoganda against the truth. Back to my morning coffee.

  • Industrial agriculture and the burning of fossil fuel for transportation and heating are two important causes of pollution and CO2 emissions.
    A superior way of doing agriculture see the work of Dr Elaine Ingham.
    A superior way of fueling transportation, see the work of David Blume.

    The ‘problem’ with these solutions is they are decentralized solutions.
    They empower local community and do the opposite to the global power structures.
    There is no longer any need for massive input from multinational corporations.

    So there you heave the reason so little of real solutions are being applied.
    They are a danger for existing global power structures.

    • Animal agriculture in particular. The single most effective thing individuals can do to fight climate change is to stop eating animals.

  • Caitlin, please look into Charles Eisenstein’s very insightful take on this: https://charleseisenstein.net/essays/initiation-into-a-living-planet

  • Great article Caitlin, but the problem is not just increasing pollution from burning fossil fuels, it’s massive, ongoing destruction of the earth’s natural topography made possible by ever increasing production of cheap energy. “Research suggests declines in tropical forest cover are taking their toll: Last year, a blockbuster study in Science concluded that tropical forests—because of their widespread destruction—are actually a net source of carbon to the atmosphere, rather than a carbon sink, as many experts had previously assumed.

    The new data present “an alarming story of the situation for the world’s rainforests,” Andreas Dahl-Jørgensen, deputy director of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative, said during a teleconference announcing the findings. “We simply won’t meet the climate targets that we agreed [to] in Paris without a drastic reduction in tropical deforestation and restoration of forests around the world.”

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2017-was-a-really-bad-year-for-tropical-forests/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-digest&utm_content=link&utm_term=2018-06-28_more-stories&spMailingID=56899159&spUserID=NTY1MTQ3ODY5MgS2&spJobID=1423913372&spReportId=MTQyMzkxMzM3MgS2

    best wishes from Mike

  • Just the fact that the New York Times features climate change EVERY SINGLE DAY tells me it isn’t real. And every “scientific” reason for warming is very easy to debunk.

    O and the Electric Universe guys also say that what climate change there was is came from the sun- and all the other planets were warming also..

    Much evidence shows temperatures have been flat anyway now for 15 years or so. And that global cooling is ahead due to lack of sunspots and lower solar activity.

    Too bad about Caitlin’s AGW- but none of us are right about everything. And I am a huge environmentalist and advocate of solar power BTW. The sky isn’t falling….but war is coming. peace

    • “the New York Times features climate change EVERY SINGLE DAY” — false. I pick up the NYT nearly every day, and I seldom see any features about climate change. In fact, now that I am thinking about it, I cannot remember the last time I saw a climate story. Though surely they will print a story today (or maybe did yesterday; I missed a day) about this new report.

      Why do climate denialists feel the need to lie about things like this? (NYT coverage of the climate)

    • Since almost all science is gov funded in this field, from the day the politicians started to speak about climate change i stopped listening. And I went to collect the weather stations raw data to check by myself on a spreadsheet. In my area, which is not densely built, no airport etc, there has been no temperature change for the last 30 years. End of the story. I don’t go before that period because the measurement equipment was too different to be compared to recent equipment. I will check again in 5 years. Do the same, please, with a weather station far from urban areas.

  • Caitlin,
    Love your stuff! I am a subscriber. I h a v e distrusted the climate thing because of the nasty things the IPCC and guys from several universities, and the MSM, have done to suppress publication of discussion/dissent and to smear anyone with doubts as swinish.

    But – I want you to consider one possibility: If you will start down the road towards the issue of Zero Point Energy (ZPE) and read Nick Cook’s book “The Hunt for Zero Point” as an entry point – you may find yourself asking if the technology to exploit this currently exists and is being held under deep black security due to a) Oil Companies’ abject fears, and b) military security – since it seems to be linked to (anti-) gravity technology. ZPE is real, but a working exploitation has not been publicly demonstrated. ZPE would end the oil cartel (and many countries’ income!) instantly. It would also end the majority of pollution sources ~overnight. It would also be the beginning of a new industrial revolution that would likely up-end the world’s oligarchies.

  • Caitlin, You are very good on many topics but climate change is not one of them.
    Climate change, aka global warming, is a cruel hoax perpetrated for political reasons, for an agenda to control the world and to prevent developing countries from developing. There are videos on You Tube that explain this, although there is, of course, censorship.
    The #Great #Global #Warming #Swindle – Full Documentary HD https://youtu.be/oYhCQv5tNsQ

    • You are joking, of course. Right? Does any sane person think that the evidence that we see, feel and hear around us – as in changing weather, is just a hoax? No, of course not. Caitlin makes a lot of sense. Perhaps you should read the article again.

      Think about your statement – ‘….to control the world’. Isn’t that happening already? Big money has most major world governments in its pocket already. It has hijacked every political system, corrupted the politicians and public servants. It doesn’t need to frighten people anymore, when it funds terrorism and the conversion of democratic countries to police states. Your argument doesn’t make sense.

      Anyway, thousands of scientists around the world, most of whom are NOT in the pockets of corrupt government or big business, corroborate. They agree – that it is very real, very visible – and very very dangerous. It threatens us, our children and future generations. That includes you and everyone you know and care about – no exceptions. Got it?

      If you are serious, then you pose a big threat to the rest of us – particularly if you resist the changes that need to be made to save the planet. Be careful, because climate change deniers will be ‘the first up against the wall when the revolution comes’.

    • For a start, averaging temperatures does not have any scientific meaning in an heterogeneous and chaotic environment, because temperature is an intensive parameter. Temperature fields are only an indication of energy flux. Now what are we talking about?

  • Is this being factored into the discussion? (overlooking the simplistic proposal for “solutions”) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzsM7H_L6Fk&feature=youtu.be

  • Caitlin, because you are saying it, I’ll look at it. Please state the science that is so convincing to you, or link to it, or name the books etc.

  • Linear 2.8mm / year rise of water for New York City, since 1850, Atlantic Ocean.

    No accelerated rise in recent years!

    Battery Park meter station, over a century:

    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750

  • Well, yeah. Which is why I try to recommend people read “Talking To My Daughter About the Economy” by Yanis Varoufakis, because he succinctly explains how the economy really works as opposed to the overly complex version presented in classes and on the news, so that ordinary people can join in on the discussions of exactly how economics functions, so that we can get more than 2 options in deciding how to run the world economy, if there still is one in 20 years. I also advise them to take a look at Jeremy Corbyn’s posts and works, because he sees the issues and has plans. And the Democracy In Europe Movement, Diem25, which has very good ideas for transparent democracy. And also consider studying permaculture, which has embedded within it solutions for food production, soil fertility and carbon sequestration, local community independence from corporate food chains, etc. And then there are worker cooperatives which are democratic workplaces, unlike what most of us have now. There are lots of ways we can improve the system and work to slow climate change. Hopfully we can learn some humility, drop the hubris, and finally learn the lesson we preach at 4 year olds–to share without beating the living daylights out of each other. Thanks.

    • Thank you for these suggestions Sionna. I will look into it.

  • Caitlin, I urge you to look into the work of James Corbett (Corbett Report), Jim Lee (Weather Modification History & Climate Viewer), Geo-Engineering Watch, InTruthbyGrace (her coverage of last several generated hurricanes) with regards to geo-engineering and weather weaponization. Most of the weather extremes we are seeing are actually being created. The Military Industrial Complex, NASA & SpaceX launches are punching holes in the ozone. This massive white cloud cover is being created by planes, preventing efficient solar uptake and ionizing the sky to be able to control the weather and possibly us. If uneducated people are blasted by constant flooding storms, hurricanes and “wildfires” (that don’t burn trees or shrubs) they will chalk it up to “human caused climate change”, when in fact “WE” are not participating in these weather experiments. Shooting off hundreds of bombs daily has an effect on the ozone, land, air and water pollution, but Congress keeps approving more money for military expansion. Look into Truthstream Media as well. The United Nations Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 are also rabbit holes that will make your mind explode.

    We have had the technology for magnetic trains that can go cross country in a matter of hours, but dirty air travel still remains the main source of cross country travel. Solar & wind power has been around for decades yet despite a red or blue president being in office, there is no move in that direction. I voted for the Green New Deal, but that got no press, so here we are.

    If hemp were legalized we could save thousands of trees, and make medicine, paper, and fabrics, but no, it stays illegal. You might say there is a global conspiracy to bring us to ecocide.

    I’d love to see what you write after your investigation into these various components of the “Climate Change” debate.

    I don’t know where the Globalist think they will hide when they’ve burnt every tree, poisoned the air, food supply and water. I suppose they think they’ll go to Mars and colonize, or tunnel themselves underground like moles and rats, hoarding food and water. Or perhaps they will put their evil minds into an AI to try live forever. I just wonder if they could “live” with themselves, knowing they created the destruction of life on Earth.

    Your consciousness raising article speaks of our only hope.

    • Just to add and upvote here to Mama Wolf.

      Caitlin, if you read the comments, please check out the sources mentioned. Also, if I might add, if you want a more scientific approach, Randall Carlson’s take on our climate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbihGWTT2IY).

      I’ve been looking at this issue now, as a layman, for 10 years without any skin in the game, and my working hypothesis is that between the IPCC extreme and the “God wills it” brigade, there is a large mass of information.

      In my humble opinion, the climate change focus if often used as a fig leaf to cover up the greater issue of the systematic destruction of our environment.

    • Caitlin, I urge you to avoid the work of deluded libertoons like James Corbett. He admittedly does occasionally make a good point or two, but his general orientation is very far off the beam. He is essentially a paranoid “anti-globalist” right-wing crank — with evil “globalism” being defined as pretty much any sane collective attempt to pull our asses out of the fire.

      BTW, I defy ANYBODY to actually read about the U.N.’s sustainable development goals and find a SINGLE objectionable thing. Just ONE thing. Go ahead; try.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Goals

  • Another great essay, Caitlin. We should strongly support efforts to reduce the amounts of carbon release which we humans are responsible for —and yes, we are able to impose limitations and alternative technologies. One wrinkle that deserves mentioning is the outside chance humanly caused global warming could have a benefit in preventing the onset of another ice age, say if emissions of volcanic ash, conversion of rainforests into cropland, and reductions of solar radiation were to trigger major global cooling. The interval since the last ice age is pretty long now, as such things go, and nature could be about to make a high-gear shift into reversal of the temperature increases documented in the last few decades.

  • In his book Sapiens, historian Yuval Noah Harari argues that global warming is just one of the major problems today that are global in essence, and cannot be solved other than through some sort of global cooperation.
    Unfortunately, global-warming deniers are generally anti-globalist and they are reluctant to look for answers beyond nationalism and patriotism.
    But once we accept that atmospheric deterioration IS occurring at a rate that threatens the planet, it becomes easier to acknowledge that it is something no nation can regulate by itself.
    As an analogy, Harari asks us to look back some thousands of years, to the first nations, to the people who lived along the banks of the Yellow River in China.
    “It was many, many different tribes and they all depended on the river for survival and prosperity, but all of them also suffered from periodic floods and droughts.
    “But no tribe could do anything about it because each of them controlled only a tiny section of the river. And then in a long and complicated process, the tribes coalesced into the Chinese nation which controlled the whole yellow river and had the ability to bring hundreds of thousands of people together to build dams and canals and regulate the river and prevent floods and droughts…”
    However, Harari’s general optimism to the contrary, it’s hard to see a happy ending in a struggle between extremists in “shared blood and place” (such as “America’s Manifest Destiny”) and those globalist elites intent on creating global tabula rasa under totalitarian control.
    That’s why Trump’s small, smoke-and-mirrors shift is a faint ray of hope.

    • The problem with globalism is that it is a one-stop-shop for power to corrupt leadership.

      Example: The EU prevents nations from individually passing laws against Roundup, the controversial Monsanto pesticide.

      And, get out of the gutter with the name-calling of those who don’t share your view.

      • Jim, I agree, but that’s exactly what Caitlin is pointing out in the article. It is possible that both these are real and happening simultaneously: The ideas that (1) powerful elite are using the global warming crisis for a global power grab and (2) anthropogenic global warming is real and extreme and will lead to our extinction if we do nothing and continue with capitalist business as usual.

        So what are we going to do about it? Just focus on the first part (elite using climate change for a global power grab) and refuse to do anything about the second part (anthropogenic global warming is real) because of it?

        • “So what are we going to do about it? Just focus on the first part (elite using climate change for a global power grab) and refuse to do anything about the second part (anthropogenic global warming is real) because of it?”

          Yes, that is EXACTLY what the right-wing “anti-globalist” climate denialist crowd will do. They are incapable of appreciating Caitlin’s brilliant, right-on-target message. They are incapable of seeing that climate change needs to be opposed in a way that challenges the global elite. Indeed, this is the ONLY way that climate change can be effectively opposed. There is no elite-friendly solution to climate change.

  • Hi Caitlin,
    Good morning
    Anyway, I think your in about the same time zone as me.
    Some thoughts on Climate Chaos. (A great name. At least the name is evolving.)
    Global warming -> climate change -> climate chaos
    Trump is not the problem, we humanity are the problem. At least he is honest about what he does, unlike sanctimonious and hypocritical word leaders like Obama. Blaming Trump for refusing to agree to agreements that will do absolutely nothing to stop what’s coming is a waste of time.
    What is necessary at a bare minimum at this late date on the road to hell is an end to cars and most air travel. There are no world leaders that have meaning that would support such a program and it would require the support of all industrial nations.
    Also, as long as the people involved in climate continue to fly around the world to meetings. it will be impossible them to convince anyone of consequence that the world needs radical change now.
    If what I read is right, the next junket is to Poland in December. At least they should hold their meetings in the hottest local with no air conditioning.
    Bill

  • Total bull shit. Problem is too many PEOPLE! I’m rooting for the asteroid.

  • Would the DEEP STATE bother to rain in its war’s if Climate Change were fact?
    You know, if the US and their whoring allies could stop bombing the planet, every single day, this earth may just have a little chance at some “self-healing”, though we are certainly doomed if they continue, even if fossil fuels are totally banned!
    Does the Deep State care?

  • We can go full Amish. Or how about cutting worldwide” defense” spending and research, NASA, space wars, etc. and channeling it into solving the energy problem. Nationalize all so-called energy companies, convert all arms manufacturers into publically-owned energy companies. Convene a worldwide panel of experts from MIT and all other top centers and have them constantly work with each other until more solutions can be found.

leave a comment