{"id":343880,"date":"2024-09-21T07:58:25","date_gmt":"2024-09-21T05:58:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=343880"},"modified":"2024-09-21T07:58:28","modified_gmt":"2024-09-21T05:58:28","slug":"the-real-climate-change-deniers-are-those-who-deny-the-climate-changed-before-we-started-burning-fossil-fuels-says-geologist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=343880","title":{"rendered":"The Real \u2018Climate Change Deniers\u2019 Are Those Who Deny the Climate Changed Before We Started Burning Fossil Fuels, Says Geologist"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From The Daily Sceptic<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

by\u00a0Hannes Sarv<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2020, Dr. Matthew Wielicki, then still an Associate Professor in the Department of Geology at the University of Alabama, noticed a great deal of anxiety in his students. On the one hand, this was understandable, as the world was just entering the Covid crisis and there was a lot of ignorance and fear about the disease in society at large. However, the anxiety that Wielicki noticed among his students had another cause \u2013 fear of climate change and the climate crisis. \u201cAnd they really were convinced that the planet was going to end in a decade or in 12 years or whatever the clock<\/a> somewhere in New York on the side of a building said,\u201d says Wielicki. There were female students who were on the verge of tears, saying that even though they came from large families, they didn\u2019t want to have children because of the climate crisis. \u201cThey just couldn\u2019t imagine bringing a child into a world that\u2019s going to end at some point because there\u2019d be too much CO2<\/sub> in the atmosphere,\u201d Wielicki recalls. He admits that, as a father of two, it was very heartbreaking to hear. \u201cI couldn\u2019t believe that the field that I was in, earth science, geology, was essentially tricking young students into believing that there was a crisis so big that it should be the number one thing that they think about when they\u2019re planning the rest of their life, and whether or not they should have a family,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate crisis science: models predict the future<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This is why Wielicki himself took a detailed look at climate-related issues and started explaining them to his students, as well as talking about them publicly on social media. For young people, the problem is that climate is only discussed in terms of crisis and disaster. For example: what should a young person think when he hears the world\u2019s political leaders like UN Secretary-General Ant\u00f3nio Guterres claim that humanity is on the highway to climate hell<\/a>? Wielicki says there is little reason to blame the young who attack artworks with tomato soup or glue themselves to the pavement when they hear this. They\u2019re passionate, and the constant proclamation of climate crisis and doom tells them that this is the right thing to do. They are also told that the same climate hell hypothesis is supported by \u2018science\u2019. But the problem is that the actual scientific evidence does not support the catastrophe we are being told is happening.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trouble with today\u2019s climate science, says Wielicki, is that it relies primarily on predictions of the future or climate models. There are different models<\/a>, some of which we can clearly see have been proven wrong to date, i.e., they predicted too much warming. Wielicki points out that any model is only as good as the assumptions which it is based upon. \u201cWe can tweak these models to give us essentially any result we want. I always tell people, that look, all models are wrong, but some are useful. I think models are useful for sure, but never will a model outweigh the observable data,\u201d Wielicki explains. \u201cYou cannot convince me that the environment is in a crisis or an emergency until you show that to me in three metrics \u2013 severe weather occurrences, the cost in insurance and loss of life. We have not seen any increase in any of them,\u201d Wielicki says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Wielicki, since 1880 the average temperature of the Earth has risen by 1.2-1.5 degrees, based on various measurements. What impact has this had on society? \u201cIf you look at that data, it\u2019s very difficult to find any metric which would define the state of the planet as a crisis or an emergency or a catastrophe or anywhere near collapse \u2013 yet these are words that are used a lot in the media,\u201d Wielicki says, adding that even the UN\u2019s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn\u2019t actually use such words in its reports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fewer deaths due to weather<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Wielicki cites the example of extreme weather events, which are constantly talked about as one of the inevitable consequences of climate change. In reality, we are not seeing an increase in extreme weather events or the associated increase in social damage. According to Wielicki, over the last quarter of a century, since around 2000, the number of natural disasters has decreased. At the same time, however, mankind has been spewing record levels of CO2<\/sub> into the Earth\u2019s atmosphere, mainly as a result of China\u2019s rapid industrialisation. Since mainstream climate science sees CO2<\/sub>, especially the human emissions of the gas, as the main cause of climate damage, which should also bring us extreme weather events, there is an immediate and obvious contradiction there, but this is not being discussed or taken into account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, Wielicki gives a simple example of how the number of people who have died as a result of bad weather and natural disasters has changed over the last 100 years. \u201cWe\u2019ve reduced the deaths associated with weather-related disasters by 96% or 98%,\u201d he notes. On the one hand, this may show that the number of extreme weather events has decreased somewhat, but on the other hand, it certainly shows that humanity is better able to cope with such disasters. The role of cheap and available energy in this coping, i.e., fossil fuels, should not be underestimated either. Stronger buildings, the ability to move people quickly away from the storm areas, the provision of effective material help or, for example, medical aid to the affected areas, etc. \u2013 all this can be achieved if you have the resource of energy to do it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, according to Wielicki, the data show that CO2<\/sub> levels in the atmosphere have gone up somewhat over the last century or so, and that the planet as a whole has warmed a little, but not that we are heading for a catastrophe. \u201cThere\u2019s no other metric that would argue that society is somehow being harmed right now by the 1.5\u00b0C or whatever degrees of warming we\u2019ve had since 1880,\u201d Wielicki says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe need to be resilient\u201d<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

As a geologist, Wielicki undoubtedly has a better-than-average understanding of how our planet has evolved in the first place, and how its climate has been in a constant state of flux. Today\u2019s climate science, however, links climate change primarily to the increasing amount of CO2<\/sub> in the atmosphere, especially its anthropogenic component. Scientists who doubt or dispute this are labelled climate deniers. Wielicki points out that we know very well from Earth\u2019s relatively recent history that major climate changes, such as the Medieval Warm Period (ca. 950-1250) or the subsequent Little Ice Age (ca. 14th to mid-19th century, precise timing depending on the location), occurred without any significant change in the proportion of CO2<\/sub> in the atmosphere. \u201cIf there\u2019s anything that I argue, it\u2019s that we need to be resilient. We should stop pretending that if we changed or lowered our emissions the climate would stop changing. That\u2019s the true denial of climate right there,\u201d Wielicki says. \u201cWhat we need to accept is that regardless of the CO2<\/sub> in the atmosphere, we are going to have climate change and those shifts could occur over timescales of decades or centuries, and we should be prepared. And being prepared means we need access to cheap, reliable energy,\u201d he adds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the world is moving in the opposite direction under the leadership of today\u2019s political leaders. One of the main objectives is to fight CO2<\/sub> emissions and to do so by phasing out fossil fuels, among other measures. However, according to Wielicki, the planners have not quite thought everything through. First of all, wind and solar power are unreliable substitutes because they can only be produced when the conditions are right, i.e., when the wind blows and the sun shines. In addition, they need constant support from the taxpayer, because when they can be produced, i.e., sold as energy to the grid, the price of electricity on the market will be low since there is a lot of it at that particular time. So in order for investors to build up these capacities, they need price guarantees from governments or taxpayer support. And on top of that, you still need to additionally build up controllable capacity to ensure that electricity is always available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wielicki also says that we need to understand that fossil fuels are not just liquids that we put in our cars at the petrol station but are essential to many aspects of our lives. \u201cAbout four billion people on the planet are being fed off of agricultural crops that are being fertilised with synthetic fertilizers that are being created from fossil fuels. So you can\u2019t just look at one side of a picture,\u201d Wielicki explains, adding that the increases in atmospheric CO2<\/sub> levels have actually also increased yields.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, Wielicki says, it is worth thinking that we need to replace many of today\u2019s fossil-fuel-based materials in everyday use, such as plastics, lubricants, oils, chemicals, etc., with new ones if we really want to phase out fossil fuels. \u201cWe have to ask what are the benefits that fossil fuels have given the society? And then let\u2019s weigh that against the possible detrimental effects that these climate models argue will happen, but haven\u2019t happened in the observable data yet,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The rise of the new green colonialism<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Programmed into this whole Western orientation towards CO2<\/sub> reduction, Wielicki says, is hypocrisy on several levels. For a start, it\u2019s worth recognising that by reducing CO2<\/sub> emissions in Europe or North America, we have effectively decided that we do not produce the goods we need here, but will produce them elsewhere in the world. \u201cWe pat ourselves on the back and say: look, we\u2019ve lowered our CO2<\/sub> emissions by this much! But all we\u2019ve done is essentially offshored that industry to China and India, They do it dirtier. They have no regard for things like environmental policy. And so the global CO2<\/sub> is going up faster than ever,\u201d Wielicki notes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the big Asian countries are ramping up the use of coal<\/a> to satisfy their energy appetite, many African countries don\u2019t have a similar option. According to Wielicki, this is directly linked to the UN\u2019s policy of not wanting these countries to increase their use of fossil fuels. This means, for example, that farm work that is done elsewhere by tractor still has to be done by many Africans with their hands. A large proportion of Africans also have little or no access to electricity. Food is cooked indoors on open fires, burning dung and wood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n