The religion of Climate Change


This is very helpful, thank you.

The models that predict global climate catastrophe in 50 years are not that different from the models that were predicting tens of millions of COVID deaths in the US. That should give us pause.

Much of this echoes Technopoly: that we flatter ourselves to think that we have objective experts and techniques, and then everyone bows before the experts and their techniques. But, like Neil Postman pointed out, a poll asking “Should the US continue economic support to Nicaragua?” loses it’s veneer of expertise if 25% of respondents answered “We should let Africans take care of themselves,” apparently mistaking Nigeria for Nicaragua. All models, even the best of models, succumb to “Garbage In, Garbage Out.”

The Climate Change religion makes it frustratingly difficult to find reliable sources of information, and alternative hypotheses for the data. I remember in 2021 seeing a roadside sign from Glacier National Park saying “The glaciers you see before you will be gone by 2020”; which, obviously they weren’t. But it’s hard to deny that the glaciers are much smaller now than they were 100 years ago. I read an article years ago (before the Climate Change Religion was so mainstream) about how particulate matter in the atmosphere settles out indiscriminately, and when it settles on frozen water it makes the surface darker, reflecting less light and instead absorbing it as heat, leading to higher rates of melting. If that’s the case, then increased loads of air-borne particulates in the atmosphere (from industry, forest fires, and desertification) could be an anthropogenic explanation for the retreat of the glaciers; but it’s far from a world-ending climate catastrophe.


I actually don’t remember 10s of millions being projected. I remember 1.2 million, or something like that, as an early scary projection. And it was in the right ballpark.

A super-naive interpretation of the early data might have said “everybody is going to die,” which is kind of what it feels like climate science is saying. But we have more experience with seeing the outcomes of pandemics. We know they go up and down and settle. We also know that the percent mortality of a particular disease makes a huge difference, and can change over time.

It feels to me as a non-expert like we don’t know nearly as much about the climate and how it changes and cycles on its own or how we can affect it.

But yeah, the feeling is similar. Do we really understand what impact our actions will have? I doubt it. Is there anything wrong with being cautious? No. But at what expense? If it’s true that we’re all doomed already, I guess there’s no point to even being cautious. I suppose that’s not the message they’re going for. lol!


I was stunned when Von Hagen said that we only have 50 years of reliable climate data. I would have thought it goes back at least 100?

Global cooling was supposed to have killed us. Note the solution is never more personal freedom, less taxes, less gov. overreach. Always more. Telling.

2.3 million in US

1 Like