Climate Change Worse (no Matter How you Look at it)

In some places, it’s much warmer than usual. That’s so many instances of climate change, of course.

I some places, it’s much colder than usual. That’s also evidence of climate change.

Good technical article in the Wall Street Journal of   5/8/13  to remind us that  CO2 is plant food. The more CO2 the more plants, and the more food for humans. It’s by  NASA astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt and  W. Happer, a professor of Physics at Princeton.

About Jacques Delacroix

I write short stories, current events comments, and sociopolitical essays, mostly in English, some in French. There are other people with the same first name and same last name on the Internet. I am the one who put up on Amazon in 2014: "I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography" and also: "Les pumas de grande-banlieue." To my knowledge, I am the only Jacques Delacroix with American and English scholarly publications. In a previous life, I was a teacher and a scholar in Organizational Theory and in the Sociology of Economic Development. (Go ahead, Google me!) I live in the People’s Green Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Facts Matter and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Climate Change Worse (no Matter How you Look at it)

  1. McHenry says:

    No takers on this huh? This is a good article and I’ll be damned if it doesn’t adhere to the rules of basic chemistry too….
    I’m wondering if plants cause a completely different effect of greenhouse gases: an increase in the water content of the air as they retain less water in response to more co2.
    Amplified across all the plants on the planet, this might absorb a good deal of CO2, causing a decline, and put more water back into the atmosphere….meaning less warming and less drought?

  2. Now, we are talking!

    All facile jokes aside, I welcome all manifestations of rationality from people who support or have supported the idea that : There is significant man-made warming that we should worry about urgently.

  3. Terry Amburgey says:

    “In some places, it’s much warmer than usual. That’s so many instances of climate change, of course.

    I some places, it’s much colder than usual. That’s also evidence of climate change.”

    We know the mean temperature is increasing; what’s happening to the variance?

  4. McHenry says:

    Update: water vapor also acts as a green house gas, so as plants release more stored water the planet will get hotter.
    Plant foods would still thrive though. But who knows about us.

  5. McHenry: I don’t know about us. The Earth axis might tilt. There could be another ice age. (The last one was not long ago.) All it would take is one random asteroid to send us the way of the dinosaurs. There are solar explosions going on all the time. There is no guarantee that they must remain at a level that does not affect our planet. All it would take would be one big one to fry us all.

    If you want to find some reason to worry, you will find one. They are easy to find. It seems to me the real question is not of a climate nature, it’s not about physics, it’s a cultural question:

    Why does your generation of Americans, the safest cohort of human beings the world has ever seen, keep looking for something to fear? (PS Also, the most pampered.)

    Something tangible, concrete to worry about? Traffic fatalities , about 30,000 last year. About half of those are perfectly avoidable. Ask me.

    • McHenry says:

      Yeah I know. You are right in that all of us on my generation are, like most religions, searching for signs of the end times. This has become rather curious to me.
      I don’t know what human need is being satisfied by belief in our own coming doom. It seems to me that this is a human condition though, as our generation has the Internet to spread conspiracies and the like, past humans had angry gods and unexplainable natural phenomena to indicate the end of them.
      And yet here we are.

      • McHenry: I had none of the above. I was content being a very vague Catholic. I was pretty sure God did not care that much what I did with my wiener so, I was not that worried.

  6. Terry Amburgey says:

    I don’t know what generation McHenry belongs to so I’ll just talk about mine, the baby boomers. We were brought up to worry about nuclear war; hiding under desks in school, bomb shelters, Kennedy & Krushchev saber rattling nukes over Cuba.

  7. McHenry says:

    I’m an 80’s baby. We’ve got global warming, the US government removing our rights before they come to enslave us, y2k, the Chinese, super viruses, and the mass bloody chaos when our water runs out.

  8. McHenry: How did it come about that you gave yourself the right to speak nonsense in public? Why are you not concerned about the judgment of other rational people?

    Running out of water is complete nonsense: Sea water plus energy= fresh water. We have infinite amounts of sea water and infinite amounts of energy. I mean nuclear energy, of course. And don’t irritate me by crying in the streets about “what happened in Japan.” The worst did happen in Japan to a nuclear plant. As a result of the damage to the nuclear plant, not much happened, a great deal of unpleasantness but very little by way of death or sickness. Certainly nothing at all happened on the scale of the imaginary horrors you so gratuitously evoke: “…bloody chaos when our water runs out.”

    You green nancies have short memories. I can still hear as if it were yesterday how we were soon going to net two-headed Japanese fish right off Santa Cruz, California. Where are they?

    I don’t want to sound more vulgar than I am (quite a bit) but is possible that you and your brothers in unquenchable grief are smoking to much, or too much of the wrong quality?

    The atomic radiation alleged horrors from the Japan tsunami are well covered in this blog. Please, let no one force me to repeat myself until you have some new evidence (of anything ) to offer. In the meantime, I have some un-important matters to attend to.

    • Terry Amburgey says:

      Hmm. Looks like Jacques needs his meds adjusted.

    • Terry Amburgey says:

      “Aquifers across the United States are being drawn down at an increasing pace, finds a new study released today by the U.S. Geological Survey. […]
      The depletion of aquifers has many negative consequences, including land subsidence, reduced well yields, and diminished spring and stream flows.

      “Large cumulative long-term groundwater depletion also contributes directly to sea-level rise,” [report author USGS hydrologist Leonard Konikow writes, “and may contribute indirectly to regional relative sea-level rise as a result of land subsidence.”

      No problem — just build a string of nuclear-powered de-salinization plants along all the coasts and pipelines to ship water to Kansas, Colorado, etc etc. Of course the gummint can’t have a hand in any of this so it’ll have to be the ‘job creators’ in the private sector that steps up. Eh Jacques?

      • Two rotten apples in this barrel.

        Sea level rising ? Sea level has been rising for more than 10,000 years. Has it been been rising faster since the industrial revolution. Yes? No?

        People are drawing more on aquifers than they did in the past because there are more of them living at a higher standard than ever. Several possible solutions:1 Reduce the population to 10,000BC level; 2 Reduce standards of living to 10,000 level; 3 Both.

        Personally and mostly for aesthetic reasons, I would prefer that people were induced to draw less on aquifers via the availability of a string of nuclear powered desalinization plants, just as Terry suggests.

        It should not be done because of the nuclear disaster precedents in ? (I will be damned, slipped my mind again!)

        I keep wondering whether the US Geological Survey, a federal agency is more or less politically neutral than, say, the IRS.

        PS It snowed in south central France around May 25th. (France, not Mount Everest, not the North Pole.)

        I am thinking of opening a new rubric: “Prof. Terry’s disaster du jour.” What do you think.

  9. McHenry says:

    I speak the words excuse it is what people around me and the ones I have grown up with believe. Nowhere did I say these are the beliefs I hold.
    I know you like to type cast me and you’re quite able to as in our talks you do all the talking. But, this is fine for me as I learn a great deal more.

    • McHenry says:


    • McHenry: I only typecast you because you are not explicit enough. It’s easy enough to say: “Many people of my generation that I know seem to believe that….” “I, however….”

      Is it possible you place too much of a burden on your reader to read between the lines?

      So, [you believe/you don’t believe] that he world is going to run out of water?

      Or, you are still thinking about it? If you are, why? What’s wrong with my simple formulation?

      • McHenry says:

        And yet you take it upon yourself to read between the lines anyway. Should I have to say what I don’t mean?
        I’m reluctant to do so in this case anyway, because in these discussions I’m quite overmatched in terms of the knowledge I can draw from, so the one card I hold is that you will make assumptions.

      • McHenry says:

        And isn’t that what this second part of the discussion is for?
        The part where you ask, “did you mean that YOU believe this?” (No lecture required)
        And I reply, “no, just what I hear from people I hang out with, and in some cases regard as nuts.”

  10. McHenry says:

    And I will be fully vulgar: if you reach my age in these times and you are still smoking bad pot, then you are indeed smoking too much.

  11. McHenry: There is no issue of being “overmatched” or it’s secondary. There is no winner. I am trying to cram rationality down other people’s throat. You are too, aren’t you?

    I am glad you come on this blog. I am criticizing you so you will do it more effectively (according to my obviously limited judgment.)

  12. Terry Amburgey says:

    Oh no! The world bank thinks climate change is a short term threat. On the other hand a notorious group of touchy-feely types like bankers has no credibility. Just more dupes eh Jacques?

    • Terry: Yes.

      And you are forcing me to admit that an explanation of my steadfast skepticism is overdue. I don’t means a technical explanation. I have said repeatedly that I will not fall into the trap of arguing techniques with technicians.

      I mean THAT I have a philosophical answer to the question you keep posing: “Jacques, do you think you are smarter than everyone?”

      The short version of the answer is that it’s not a matter of smarts but of steadfastness. Have I been more steadfast than others in the past? Yes.

  13. Terry Amburgey says:

    I empathize. I have no intention of falling into the trap of arguing stubbornness with the pig-headed.

    • Terry: I have been surrounded by a religious frenzy before. You too, I believe although to a lesser extent. I recognize one when I see one. This is one

      And many people who are smarter than I profess to believe that Jesus actually walked out of the tomb under his own power. That would be hundreds of thousands of them.

      Collective testimony is a good enough reason to pay attention. It’s worthless as proof.

      Anyone who would reverse the extraordinary improvement in human life owed to fossil fuels had better have no tears in his story.

      Why have temperatures remained stationary as CO2 emission increased, in the past fifteen years?

      The Greenland Viking Diet.

      Is it permissible to change your measure exactly at the point in the curve that demonstrates the veracity of your hypothesis?

  14. Terry Amburgey says:

    Oh no! The CIA has joined the international climate change conspiracy. What do you think Jacques, will they take over conspiratorial control from the Illuminati?

    “The Central Intelligence Agency is funding a scientific study that will investigate whether humans could use geoengineering to alter Earth’s environment and stop climate change. The National Academy of Sciences will run the 21-month project, which is the first NAS geoengineering study financially supported by an intelligence agency. With the spooks’ money, scientists will study how humans might influence weather patterns, assess the potential dangers of messing with the climate, and investigate possible national security implications of geoengineering attempts.”

    • Well, Terry. What do you think? (That’s what important since you have already decided what I think.)

      Why the CIA? There may be a good explanation but I will be damned if I can think about it.

      Minor correction: I never said that the climate change folly was the result of a conspiracy. It’s a religious cult, a successful one.

  15. Terry Amburgey says:

    The climate change conspiracy keeps growing (even among republicans). However the poll results below could be the result of CIA covert action/disinformation now that they’ve joined the conspiracy. [Note to other readers: although Jacques claims to believe it’s a ‘religious cult’ and not a conspiracy, the truth is easy to discern. Ask him if he believes that there is email showing scientists discussing the falsification of data. Falsification of data is not an act of ‘religious fervor’…].

    “The Natural Resources Defense Council just came out with a poll, conducted by Hart Research Associates and Chesapeake Beach Consulting, that tested public responses to the President’s climate plan. The poll showed wide bipartisan support for key climate change action proposals included in Obama’s speech from several weeks ago.

    Perception That Climate Change is a Serious Problem

    The first question in the poll was the following: “How much of a problem do you consider the issue of climate change and global warming to be?”

    66% of respondents saw climate change as a serious problem. 31% saw it as not a problem. These numbers remained largely unchanged since December 2012 (65-32). However, the share that sees climate change as a “very serious” problem has grown from 31% to 39%, now outnumbering the share that sees it as only “somewhat serious” of a problem.

    86% of Democrats viewed climate change as a serious problem as opposed to 13% who saw it as not a problem. 62% of Independents saw it as a serious problem versus 35% who did not. Republicans were more evenly split than one might think: 46% said climate change was a serious problem as opposed to 50% who did not see it as a problem.”

    • I am allowing myself to be goaded into giving a quick response to a complex issue.

      Bi-partisan servility, submission to a religious idea makes no impression on me. My eyes see what they see and my mind produces what analysis it produces. There is no consensus that can do anything except occasionally prompt me to look again.

      I am quite familiar with religious ecstasis masquerading as rationality. When I was a teenager and a young man, almost everyone who counted in my country of origin was a “Marxist.” I decided to follow my judgment and to not be one who counted. Later, in graduate school in this country I found myself dong research in a field also dominated by Marxists. They almost succeeded in a derailing m career before it even started because my statistical results would not conform to their religious doctrine. (By the way, the doctrine in question has since fallen into complete disrepute except in backward countries.) I never wavered.

      Do I think I a smarter than everybody? No, I think I am braver than most. It must be a specialized gene i was unlucky to inherit.

      Millions of mainstream Christians believe that after being crucified, Jesus pushed the stone covering the entrance to his tomb and just walked away. That’s millions, if not billions. Me, I think the Temple authorities took away his body to try to avoid the formation of a cult around his grave.

      Global warming has all the features of a cult. I explained how in detail in another posting I am too tired to look for now.

      Terry is confused about the relationship between conspiracy and religion. Do leaders of a new religions sometimes engage in chicanery, lying, plotting against enemies? To ask the question is to answer it. The plotting is a small part of the whole. It may not even have been effective . (They got caught, after all.) The eschatology is the main feature of this cult.

  16. Terry Amburgey says:

    Thanks for the clarification. Only part of the climate change conspiracy is a conspiracy; the scientists generating false data are the conspirators, the leaders. The millions of others are gullible mooks who’ve been converted into religious cultists through the false teaching of the conspirators.

    “My eyes see what they see and my mind produces what analysis it produces.”

    Ah yes. The earth looks flat from your vantage point so the conclusion is obvious. I believe I posted a link for the Flat Earth Society before, should I repost it? I can only imagine what your mind produces as your eyes see the sun rising in the east, traversing the sky and setting in the west. Should I investigate to see if there is a society devoted to believers in Ptolemy’s geocentric model?

  17. Insults are the last resort of the argumentless.

    False data are not much needed. Cherry picking* is enough.

    Is it true that average global temperature did not raise in the past fifteen years?

    If it’s true, is that because CO2 emission decreased or is it in spite of the fact that CO2 emissions increased?

    *Folks: this means selecting and promoting measurements that agree with your thesis and ignoring all others. Example: Greenland was much warmer around 1,000 than now. It sure was not because of human CO2 emissions. There could yet be an explanation compatible with the global warming gospel. (there could be.) Why does the Warmist curia never tackle the problem?

    Have you heard of the hockey stick scandal?

  18. Terry Amburgey says:

    “Is it true that average global temperature did not raise in the past fifteen years?”

    I posted the data& analysis [in a peer-reviewed scientific journal] in another thread. You were forced to admit the temperature trend but asserted that it didn’t meet the Delacroix standard of being worrisome. Remember? Go look it up it’s on your blog. BTW, what’s special about 15 years? Why not 25…or 5..or 50? Why not the 15 years between 1960-75? Are you trying to ‘cherrypick’?

    “Greenland was much warmer around 1,000 than now.”
    LOL. You accuse others of ‘cherry picking’ and then trot that out.

    But back to the conspiracy surrounded by a religious cult, can you identify any of the ringleaders?

    • Terry: I had forgotten and I can’t find it but thanks for reminding me of your demonstration. The temperatures in the past fifteen years did rise in a way that is absurdly uninteresting.

      The “past fifteen years” is not cherry picking. It’s a period of maximum CO2 emissions. It should also should show a superior rise in temperature. In my recollection, it does not.

      I forget such episodes because I regularly clear my memory of debris. This is simply not interesting.

      There is no temperature rise that is likely to be caused by humans that is steep enough and lasting enough to be a cause for alarm.

      There are too many absurdities in the climate change narrative. It’s not worth following.

      Terry: you keep missing the point. You seem to think that if you win the argument fifty per cent of the time plus one time, your side wins. Let me remind you of a scientific principle:

      If someone throws a ball up in the air, a single ball, and it fails to fall back, the whole theory of gravity is in trouble. It’s one time. (Yes we have to make sure the ball is not on the roof.)

      I think this is a dead horse. Fewer and fewer people pay any attention to the apocalypse narrative. (I did my bit toward this.) It still has policy after-effects that are damaging to the economy. That although its policy implications are mostly ignored.

      If CO2 were such a big concern , the priesthood would promote nuclear energy. Instead, look at the interesting German experiment to do away with all things nuclear.(I wish them well, by the way. If anyone can pull it off, it’s the Germans.)

  19. Terry Amburgey says:

    Oh, before I forget. I couldn’t find a society devoted to believers that the sun circles the earth. Perhaps you can start one.

  20. Terry Amburgey says:

    “Fewer and fewer people pay any attention to the apocalypse narrative.”

    Yet again you make an assertion with no basis in fact. See my post above [July 19, 2013 8:01pm]. You don’t want to go this way. You’re quite proud of being an obstinate ‘voice in the wilderness’. It doesn’t work if you’re actually agreeing with a majority opinion. Revel in your position as part of a rapidly shrinking group of cranks.

    • Terry does not understand that a single ball that fails to fall back to the ground dooms the Theory of Gravity.

      Climate change is kind of a dead horse to me. It’s tiresome so, I will mostly stay away from it.

      Here is the link to a blog of someone with climatology credentials (unlike me) who tirelessly debunks the myths associated with the climate change cult. I would rather my reader read him directly than have to re-type (with spellos) his bouts of wisdom.

      The title “Climate change” on the face of this blog leads to the same climate truth blog.

      Once, in a coffee shop, a stranger started talking to me about The Rapture (know what it is?) I asked him if I could have his car.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        Finish your story. Did you get a new car?

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        “Terry does not understand that a single ball that fails to fall back to the ground dooms the Theory of Gravity.”

        Jacques does not understand that a single airplane that fails to fall back to the ground does not doom the Theory of Gravity.

      • This sniping is becoming too narrow for most readers.

        I have been saying all along that the indisputable fact that Greenland was much warmer in 1,000 than it is today harms the view that industrial activity creates CO2 that warms global temperatures. The few thousands of Vikings in Greenland and their Indian and Eskimo neighbors must not have generated much CO2.

        There might be a good explanation that leaves climate changism intact. (Terry’s airplane for gravity.) Why are they withholding it this explanation.

        And by the way, the explanation will also have to explain why all of western Europe was also warmer then than now.

        I am tired of repeating the obvious.

        Any reader who wants to gauge changists’ bad faith who should read up on the “hockey stick ” controversy, easy to find on the web.

        I need to take a nap!

  21. Terry Amburgey says:

    While your readers are wandering the web they should make a stop here:

    • Terry: Why in the world would I do this? Your kind of religious fanaticism dominates the media. There is no escaping at all. It’s failing under its own weight, fortunately.

      The title of the link you propose is itself intellectually dishonest. The word “denier” is intended to evoke “Holocaust denier.” Anyone who does this does not deserve even the little attention I just gave it.

      Ps: You win , Terry: I have decide to change my blog’s name to: “F… Facts!”

  22. Pingback: The Climate Change Report for Government Officials: a Meaningful Glance at the Meaningless | FACTS MATTER

  23. Pingback: Climate Change Denier by Jacques Delacroix | Posted on Liberty Unbound on June 27, 2019 Part I | FACTS MATTER

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s