Unvarnished Answers to Global Warming

The New York Times ran a piece a little over a year ago about short answers to hard questions about climate science. I am presenting my answers to these questions (questions in red), based on extensive research of climate articles, science and research papers.

1. How much is the planet heating up?

First, we have to decide which temperature set to use. There are several. Do we want raw or adjusted numbers?

Second, we have to decide what to do when values are missing. What method do we use to interpolate the values? What is the uncertainly in those measurement?

Third, we must decide how the average is to be calculated. Do we grid the data? Do we use anomalies from a base period? If so, which base period?

After all these decisions are made, we can give an answer. There will be many different answers, depending on what values are used and methodology is used. Which is correct? All of them and none of them. That is the wonder of statistics. All will most likely be increasing in value or remaining more or less level.

Most of the warming since 1950 is due to humans, according to the article. Why 1950? It has been warming since the 1880s or before at rates similar to after 1950. Suddenly, in 1950 humans jumped in and start to raise the temperature? Mostly, as far as is ascertainable, 1950 is used because it fits the theory. The year 1950 fits the theory and the theory shows 1950 is when warming by humans began. That is called “circular reasoning”–using your conclusion to prove your theory. It’s logically invalid. It proves nothing.

2. How much trouble are we in?

None or apocalyptic. It depends entirely on how much faith one puts in the calculations, models and the theory itself. Al Gore made a comment about 4 Hiroshima bombs per second added energy. This would be 2 billion Hiroshima bombs since 1998 if we stop at 2014. One calculation found on the website NoTricksZone shows this amount of energy would raise the temperature of the ocean .024° 1

While Al Gore makes things sound very, very scary, physics says there’s not a reason to panic.

What will the increase mean? No one can say. There’s a lot of “may” “could” “might”. However, when pressed, climate science says it cannot predict local changes. Local changes are what affects people. If those changes are unknown, then we know nothing useful about the future of climate. People live locally, not globally.

We have the ability to move goods everywhere on the planet, so local droughts and floods should not have the devastating effect they had in the past. People can more inland or elsewhere if oceans rise.

Will things change? Of course, whether or not CO2 continues to rise. There is no way to hold the climate level.

3. Is there anything I can do?

A tiny bit, maybe. You can drive a fuel-efficient car, replace your appliances with energy-efficient ones (ONLY when your current one stops working. Otherwise, you’re filling landfills for no reason and requiring more manufacturing of replacement appliances), you have no choice but to use CFL and LED light bulbs (LED’s are BRIGHT! My lamp now points at the ceiling to avoid the extreme brightness.), use water wisely (growing a water-intensive lawn in a drought area is just foolish. Forget the “save the earth” factor). The New York Times says take fewer airline trips. Maybe people should try writing Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio and let them know they are NOT helping. Forget carbon offsets. They are pretend accounting that does nothing except serve to advertise how virtuous you think you are. Climate is not affected by displays of virtue.

4. What’s the optimistic scenario?

We as humans do what we do best–adapt. We resist the “end-of-the-world” wailing and figure out how to deal with a changing climate, as we always have. We don’t kill every eagle, condor and bat trying to make electricity like they did decades ago. We do not panic and start doing “something”. Doing “something” with no clue as to the outcome or based on fear is no better than doing nothing. There is little chance humans control the climate. There’s virtually no chance of getting everyone to agree on solutions to a global climate change. Adapting is the best option, done locally.

5. Will reducing meat in my diet help?

No. It will, however, mostly make many people very cranky and increase interpersonal conflicts. The idea behind reducing meat does not hold up to scrutiny.

6. What is the worst case scenario?

In an effort to circumvent the reality that humans are not likely to be the major driver of climate, a world-wide dictatorship is established and millions or billions die due to lack of affordable energy.

7. Will a tech breakthrough help us?

No one knows.

8. How much will the seas rise?

No one knows. People can and will move away from the coast. Whether they do it matter-of-factly or wailing and moaning depends on how people are taught to deal with change.

9. Are the predictions reliable?

No one knows. Predictions 100 years in the future are science fiction. Probably even at 50 years.

What do we call “reliable”? It warms up? That’s possible with or without human input. It warms faster? Define “faster”. If it warms 2° based on whatever method we chose back in #1, by 2100, is the prediction is reliable? The effects of that increase are unknowable, of course, and verification of accuracy is decades out. It’s a useless prediction/projection.

10. Why do people question climate change?

Because that’s what is involved in science–questioning, testing and learning. To not question is to not be scientific. The methodology and data manipulation found in climate science seems to fit the definition of “bad science” and needs to be called out.

Then there’s the favorites:

a. Oil companies pay people to question the science. No, oil companies love global warming. All that money they make on useless turbines and solar panels via subsidies and tax breaks can be used to build the required natural gas backup for these plants at a much lower cost to the company. There is also zero evidence that oil companies have paid off anyone. If it is true, oil companies have better public relations people than the government, universities and Hollywood. These people would have to be super geniuses and majorly talented to exceed the combined efforts of those big hitters.

b. Politics is blamed. Conservatives and libertarians tend to question the theory. The same is true of progressives as far as blindly accepting the theory If conservatives don’t believe in global warming because it’s in line with their political beliefs, it holds that progressives believe in global warming for exactly the same reason. Translation: This idea clearly indicates climate change belief is NOT about science at all, but is indeed a political battle. It’s about political ideology. It cannot be settled by science since none is involved.

11. Is crazy weather tied to climate change?

No one knows.

12. Will anyone benefit from climate change?

It stands to reason some will some won’t, just as is true with most everything else in life. It was a pointless question.

13. Is there any reason for hope?

More and more countries are realizing how politically motivated so-called solutions to all of the alleged manmade climate change is. Countries and individuals are more willing to refuse to join in the “solutions” that cause damage, costs trillions and have little or no hope of success. Rational discussions of the topic are slower coming.

14. How does agriculture affect climate change?

No one knows. If we drop our agricultural practices and return to hunter/gather lifestyles, millions will perish. The best we can do is work at making food growing as efficient as possible and avoid practices like deforestation whenever practicable.

It should also be asked how wind turbines and solar panels destroy the landscape and may affect climate. We know turbines increase the surface temperature below the turbines by mixing air, much like the fans in citrus groves that are used to fight against frost.

How do skyscrapers affect climate? How do primitive villages affect climate? How does the migration of humans from one area to another affect climate?

One can go on all day with these hypotheticals. No one knows. It is generally believed that most actions in some way affect climate, but to what degree is not known and may never be known. Climate is a very complex chaotic system.

15. Will the seas rise evenly?

Unlikely. Geography and tectonics and gravity indicate it will probably be uneven. We can’t predict the pattern, so we adapt as the rise occurs.

16. Is it really about “carbon”?

NO, it’s about CO2. “Carbon” is shorter, so media people and others have taken to using that term. It is extremely unscientific, however. Carbon is an element, CO2 is a compound. Carbon is found in many, many things on Earth. This “shortcut” is another indication of the lack of science in the discussions of climate change/global warming. It’s intellectual laziness. It does make a great marking catch-phrase. It’s truly sad “science’ has sunk this low.

1 http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/22/sks-hiroshima-bomb-heat-clock-fraud-claim-2-1-billion-climate-ground-zeros-yet-cant-find-a-single-one-of-them/#sthash.bc5IIopa.dpuf

Roaming through the climate, politics, etc.


Noticed Factcheck.org was spreading the LIE of 97% agreement with global warming. I have to wonder if they are so incompetent and incapable of understanding statistics, how is it I am supposed to trust their “facts”. Every study claiming 97% has been shown to be bogus—manipulated to the desired end, retracted for not “protecting identities” (couldn’t admit that the study was lie), etc. With “fact checking” like this, we probably should consult a Ouija board for future “fact checks”. At least in that case, everyone knows the answers are from someone pushing the pointer in a desired direction. It’s not about the truth and has no pretentious name for itself. Skip the “fact checkers” and go Ouija.


Henceforth, I have decided to refer to CAGW believers as hysterical chicken littles. This is not a derogatory term, much as I have been told repeatedly that “denier” is not a derogatory term. It is merely descriptive, as is “denier”. Since using the term “denier” is actually not supposed to discourage discussion, I am sure the term “hysterical chicken little” will not either. I have always been fascinated by the CAGW believers claim that “denier” is not derogatory and they are not being “mean”, merely descriptive. In honor of their need to be descriptive, “hysterical chicken littles” will be used to describe these people. I am sure to receive accolades for my use of accurate terminology and as such will encourage much discussion, which CAGW believers are always saying they welcome.

The REAL science deniers
One tactic often used by global warming advocates is calling anyone who questions global warming science a “science denier” and state that said individual probably does not “believe in evolution” either. Let’s look at who really does not believe in evolution: global warming believers.

What, you say! Explain. Okay, my understanding of evolution is that species come and go and survive based on natural selection and adaptability. Global warming believers now are saying NOTHING can go extinct or it’s our fault and it’s a crisis. Wait a minute. Doesn’t that directly contradict evolution? It states everything must remain static—there can be no more extinctions. None. Zip. I do not recall Darwin or any one else saying evolution will by the year 2000 will have reach stasis and should remain forever in that state. I’m pretty sure I would have remembered that. The insistence that no more extinctions occur is clearly denying evolution.

Remember this when the global warming faithful (those following the playbook, in other words) try to claim if you don’t believe in global warming, you’re the “science denier”.

Global warming believers:

“Mind nailed shut, siliconed and has a moat around it”—the best description of so-called global warming believers. They have no interest in science, truth or anything other than being right and making sure everyone agrees they are right.  I have tried engaging said individuals on the net, but it always ends the same way—insults of my questioning, demands that I conform or else (I feel like a victim of the Borg—resistence is futile), then on to name calling and worse.  If I had a dollar for every believer who claimed to “want a discussion”, I’d retire and never have to listen to the claims of open-mindedness from those who are the definition of completely closed-minded.  There is no science possible with a mind nailed shut, siliconed, with a moat around it.

Wolf spider attacking cockroach

Some days you’re the spider, some days you’re the cockroach

Flaws in the Global Warming world

It’s time to return to some of the major problems in the global warming arguments—that humans are “polluting the planet” with “carbon” emissions.

First, it’s not carbon, it’s carbon DIOXIDE. To call it carbon is very, very indicative of someone who does not know science. Only a non-scientist would refer to CO2 as C (which is actually several isotopes of Carbon, C12, C13 and C14). That is the first clue that the person speaking is merely parroting what they have been told and do not really understand the science at all. One suspects they could be convinced O2 is a pollutant if enough scientifically sounding pronouncement were made on it. There would be a call to not add any O2 to the air. People with O2 machines would have them confiscated. In reality, CO2 is only called a pollutant if it can be used to limit some kind of activity the greens don’t like—say burning fossil fuels, raising cattle, making concrete. It’s fine if you’re flying to a conference on global warming—it’s only bad CO2 if it’s not used to save the planet from CO2.

Second, anyone who claims to believe in Darwin and natural selection and evolution should be laughing at the insanity of the claim of global warming. In order for global warming to be true, humans have to be mightier than nature. We must be Godlike in our current status. Or, more probably, we must be aliens to this planet. Otherwise, all that we do would be part of evolution and nature. How can a creature that evolved on the planet be destroying “nature”. The creature IS nature. Can we blame elephants for knocking over trees and trying to cause global warming with deforestation? Why not? The elephant doesn’t know what it’s doing? Maybe it does. Maybe it’s trying to remove the parasite called “humans” from the planet. If humans are a parasite, they’re a naturally evolved one, so trying to remove them means claiming evolution was “wrong” in making them. This all leads to simply ludicrous proclamation about how nature evolves and somehow one of the things it caused to evolve is not part of that nature now and must be eradicated via suicide.

Third—it’s getting warmer. No, the calculated global average temperature is going up. What does that mean? It means that the weighted, gridded, adjusted and estimated numbers taken from various methods of temperature measurement are increasing as shown by the trend line. What does this mean in the real world? No one has a clue. There’s nothing that can possibly tell anyone anywhere what a weighted, gridded , adjusted and estimated average of temperature measures over the globe mean. It is a wild guess that it means things will get ugly. It’s already been shown repeatedly that it does not mean warming everywhere, that children will know what snow is, that the ocean is not swallowing up New York (thought it certainly could swallow up places where people foolishly built right on the shore of the ocean. Living right up against the ocean has resulted in lost societies and it will again. Let’s not forget the ocean has risen and receded before in history. People can move. The idea that people cannot move is just silly. They don’t want to, but nature does care what people want. Get over it.), there are actually fewer tornadoes and hurricanes, etc. There’s more news coverage and more wailing and gnashing of teeth, but things are basically as they have always been.

Fourth, correlation is not causality. The earth getting warmer at the same time we are burning oil and gas does not indicate oil and gas are the cause. There is a phenomena called the greenhouse effect involving CO2 and re-radiating of energy. It’s very easy demonstrated in a lab setting. Now, take the CO2 out of the lab, put it in a box with unknown factors and get back to me on how accurate your predictions are. Better yet, let me create the boxes with currents, varying landscapes, varying winds, varying clouds, varying albedo, etc and you let me know how that “simple” physics works out. CO2 raises temperature in a lab box and in the atmosphere, but in the atmosphere, there is no way possible to know how much. This is seen in the inability of modelers to calculate cloud cover, etc, with any realistic resolution, the continual recalculating of how much warming there is, how much ice there is, etc. We simply do NOT know what is causing the warming. There is a good chance there are multiple factors and it will be decades, if not centuries, if ever, that we understand enough of the system to predict outcomes. Then, we’re faced with the “just because we can measure it doesn’t mean we can control it” reality.

Fifth, global warming is said to be causing everything, even logically contradictory things, like rain in one place, drought in another. Global warming believers say that’s because those things are local. Yes, they are. However, if you cannot accurately predict changes locally, global, to be blunt, is irrelevant. It in no way gives us any idea of how to prepare for changes which at one time was the goal, before stopping the warming meant income redistribution and a return to pre-industrial lifestyles. Of course, warmists will say nobody in their camp says that but every single idea outside of the money redistribution, involves 19th century technology like wind and solar stretched beyond breaking with the claim it can power today’s society. No. Never. No way. It cannot. It’s physics. Wind and solar lack a continual fuels supply and their energy density is comparable to using a match to light a football stadium. That leaves living 1800’s style. There are no other options.

Nuclear is the only “low-carbon” energy source that could effectively reduce CO2 and the environmentalists have made it a giant boogeyman to be feared more than starvation, freezing or death by some very ugly diseases. We’re right back to pre-industrial, no matter how loudly the warmist doth protest. The smoke and mirrors have cleared and the truth shines through.


Say that again, really fast, and maybe it will make sense…..Nah.

Here we go again


Real Science has a post showing a newspaper from 1934 asking if the Arctic is melting and the Statue of Liberty will be partially submerged, followed by a headline from March 2016 with a similar story.

There’s an even more similar claim here:


It’s just a constant recycling of claims of impending doom.  The cartoons of people who stood on the sidewalk with signs saying “The End is Near” are being crowded out by the “scientists” of doom, global warming soothsayers.

For all our technology, we are just as gullible as those who sacrificed virgins to their gods in the hopes of getting rain, bought magic elixirs from traveling salesmen and bought plans for perpetual motion machines.  Human beings seem hopelessly mired in wishful thinking and what they wish for the most is their own demise, it seems.  And there’s always someone there to sell them the plans.

Call me when it’s safe out there.

How to not convince a person global warming is real

5 Ways To Talk With Conservatives About Climate Change

Can’t do that with progressives, talk that is. Many merely scream and yell and call people deniers (see the ending of this piece that is supposed to be conciliatory). These are some suggestions I found on Care2.com for talking to conservatives about global warming, which apparently they think will work,and my responses in red:

1. Climate change is real and it’s happening now. It’s happening all over the world and the poorest people are the ones who are suffering the most. If Conservatives, especially those of the religious persuasion, truly care for their neighbors, climate change should be high on their list of priorities.

First, they are suggesting…..an appeal to religion. Not science, but religion. Plus they suggest claiming climate change is already happening. (Of course it is—it always has. Tell us something we don’t know. Same for not using science in the argument. This is not going to win converts unless the person is easily “guilted” into a certain behaviour. And, again, this is not science. The actual science says the effects are not being felt and most of what is claimed is a desperate, last-ditch effort to preserve the “end-of-the-world” meme in spite of all evidence to the contrary.)

2. There are many causes that Conservatives can support, but caring for the environment envelops three of the key foundational tenants of this movement: trans-generational loyalty, the need for home, and the priority of local economy.

Try bringing in trans-generational loyalty (that term alone will alienate most conservatives since it’s progressive speak), the need for home (how that is supposed to work, I have no idea), and the priority of local economy (also a losing idea—local is good only in specific cases, not one-size-fits-all). Not a convincing argument.

3. Even though most Conservatives believe in God as the omnipotent designer of the Earth, it is important to note that as humans, we have the power to make our own choices. Believing in climate change isn’t an insult to God, it’s an acknowledgment of responsibility!

Believing in global warming is not an insult to God? Seriously, we just elevated ourselves to God’s level by saying we control the climate. A quick study of religion may be in order before anything in this area is tried again.

4. By replacing our energy sources with clean energy, we can reduce the human impact of climate change and therefore reduce the burden on the environment. Being good stewards of the Earth is a motto taught in Sunday School, and it doesn’t end when you walk out the doors of the church.

Now we get replacing our energy with clean energy as a suggestion. IF we had any, we would. The bird killing, bat-chomping environmental disasters called wind turbines and solar panels are NOT clean by anyone’s estimation, except in the minds of uninformed climate change believers. Land is destroyed, radioactivity is dumped in valleys in China, mines and chemicals are involved. Massive fossil fuel usage in transportation, installation, and then energy only when the sun shines or the wind blows. Thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines (the very ones environmentalist opposed in the 70’s). That is NOT a clean energy source.

5. And finally, teach your friends and family about conserving the environment. Start small with your children, capitalizing on their curiosity about the world around them. Moms Clean Air Force provides all the important resources to help you arm yourself with the facts and teach your family to stand up to skeptics and climate change deniers!

The piece suggests “Moms Clean Air Force” page. (I’ve written on the completely unscientific nature of Moms—this will not help the case for global warming believers trying to appeal to a rational listener. https://whynotwind.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/moms-clean-air-force-clueless-and-dangerous/)

Note, too, that they insult the very people they are trying to convince by calling them “deniers”, when there is NO science in what these individuals are writing. Perhaps if they actually looked at the science and could actually understand it, they would realize they are the ones going against science.

All in all, the suggestions are emotional appeals to try and get people to mindlessly agree with the global warming camp. Public flogging of those who dare to disagree might be more effective and would certainly be more honest. It’s all emotional blackmail, devoid of science.  Is anyone surprised?


(Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/5-ways-to-talk-with-conservatives-about-climate-change.html#ixzz45jRQSdbY)

Snow jobs

Two snow jobs for the week:

The “Gore effect” strikes again. Last week, Gore had to drive into Harvard due to a heavy spring snow storm on the East Coast cancelling flights. He could make a lot more money and actually perform a valuable service as “Al the Snowmaker”. Need more snow? Invite Al and you’re sure to get some! Anyway, it’s as scientific as global warming and at least serves a truly useful purpose.

RICO and global warming questioners:

The use of the RICO act against global warming questioners is an admission that the global warming is not a persuasive argument and that it can only be sold by force. This is also an admission that it is not science. Science is sold by reason and facts, not lawsuits. Admittedly, this probably started with teaching evolution and lawsuits about that. People run to court when their case is very, very weak and they hope to con a judge or jury into feeling sorry for them and ruling against the stronger argument. Sadly, that can be a “winning” strategy, in the same way dropping a nuclear weapon can end a neighborhood dispute. It’s completely inappropriate, underhanded and an admission of lying or deception on the part of the one bringing the RICO act. It’s winning at any cost.  IF we had a scientifically literate society and not a bunch of sheep bleating their allegience to whomever is the scariest and meanest and nastiest person around, this would not happen. But humans tend to be sheep and are lead to the slaughter over and over, with merely a word or a gesture. No force needed. Just don’t tell me you “care” about the planet and your kid’s future. If you did, you wouldn’t be obediently walking into the slaughter pen. (Note: People are not pigs—pigs fight back. Calling men and policemen pigs is actually a very high complement.)

The use of the RICO act is also proof that the goal here is not to stop the companies and groups from existing, but rather to tax them just as was done with cigarettes. In spite of cigarettes being “a horribly dangerous product”, it was never outlawed. The government continues to allow the sale of a killer product to the public. Hollywood continues to portray smoking as acceptable. It was never about harm, but rather about money. No one wants to shut down global warming questioners, they want to tax the daylights out them. If these groups turn over their donor lists, the government can punitively tax the donors (except the ones that give to the Democratic Party, of course) and increase revenue. The organization itself is not the target—the donors and corporations are. As for silencing global warming critics, the vast majority work for free or donations from readers, so there’s nothing to tax there. The government is just hoping the saber rattling will scare critics into hiding or make them irrelevent.

This may be a poor time to try this—oil and gas are laying off and shutting down along with coal. The government has effectively strangled the golden goose for now. Trying to squeeze a few more eggs out is a futile effort. However, since there is NO alternative to oil and gas (try building a turbine from scratch with NO oil or gas or coal), there’s a chance some income can be had. Enough to keep the government going until the next target can be acquired.

“Nearly 150 academics have signed on to the cause, including George Woodwell, founder and director emeritus of Woods Hole Research Center; James Powell, former president of the science museums of Los Angeles and of the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia; and some prominent climate researchers, like James Hansen of NASA, Michael Mann of Penn State University, and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. (From cityjournal.org   April 6, 2016)

If ever there was list of RICO type behaviours, there it is. So-called “independent” scientists who receive millions, if not billions, from the government to continue the global warming mantra at all costs, including possible data manipulation (interesting that the past cools, the present warms and that just happens to be the way these folks want the data to go). Talk about incentive to keep up the tale and do everything possible to silence those who see your gravy train for what it is. Oil and gas should be so lucky as to have an endless government blank check.


The Gore Effect

Roundup of the latest news

Summer of 2030 heat wave could kill 11,000, White House says

“Because of the science we have in this report and the modeling that was done, we can say that the increase in heat-related deaths far exceeds the decrease in cold related deaths. And we know that because of science,” said U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy.

All those years of mocking psychics and now the Surgeon General is saying predicting the future is science. Apologies to all of you psychics that were demeaned or insulted or bullied as not being scientists.

In a way, the report may be correct. If the USA keeps raising energy prices, killing jobs and destroying the economy, death could be a result, especially when air conditioning is killed off.  It’s impossible for wind turbines and solar panels to provide air conditioning at today’s level, so the government is just stating the fact that it intends to deprive people of cheap energy even if it kills them.

USA Today April 4, 2016

Well said:

Mark Steyn provided the answer at the Princeton Club Tuesday: “The great thing about professing to ‘Save the Planet’ is that it absolves you of the need to do anything.”


CO2 is not a thermostat

If your home had a thermostat that when turned up two degrees warmed the house anywhere from a half a degree to 5 degrees, you would replace it. Yet CO2 has no direct relationship to the temperature of the earth but it is treated as if it were. It’s time to replace that thermostat with one that works or admit we have never actually found a single mechanism that increases the temperature of the earth and therefor humans have no ability to regulate or exert major influence over earth’s temperature.

Selective science

Ever notice how people selectively choose science? Global warming believers throw science out as a justification for “we have to do something” and then dump science when it says nuclear energy is the best solution to CO2 in the air or when it comes to things like fracking. As usual, it’s not about science at all, it’s about winning the game any way you can. Science does not pick and choose, yet its so-called believers do so constantly. So the next time someone says “It’s about the science”, point out that nuclear is the best choice for reducing CO2 in the air and fracking is a wonderful way to get more energy currently while we implement nuclear—science says so.

Can they be any less intelligent and convincing?

“Last Month Was The Hottest March In The Global Satellite Record, And The Arctic Is Still Sizzling”    (headline from Climate Progress April 4)

Please, please, tell me none of these people are EVER involved in the preparation of food. If the Arctic is “sizzling”, I can see the biggest epidemic of food poisoning seen by man. Why is it these individuals never see just how stupid they are?  (Stupid is the only word that applies here—if you are offended, I’m sorry you’re offended by reality.)  A five year old can tell you ice does NOT sizzle.

Humans beings should be extinct

“Climate change threatens hearts, lungs but also brains, says US study)

(from http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/78557847/Climate-change-threatens-hearts-lungs-but-also-brains-says-US-study)

Human beings are incredibly fragile creatures that, according to every single theory of evolution, should not exist anymore. Actually, the headline is more accurate than it would appear—climate change has indeed increased the level of ignorance and the belief in superstition among those who follow the cult of climate change.  I doubt that particular truth was the intent of the writer, however.



Sparrows feeling the sizzle