Clueless Utility Baron: “Climate has been changing for Millenia”

April 12, 2017

Science nuggets from clueless Utility hack.
We await for CNBC to present PR tips from United Airlines.


The science around climate change hasn’t proven that carbon dioxide is the primary contributor to temperature fluctuations on Earth, Southern Company Chairman and CEO Tom Fanning told CNBC on Tuesday.

Fanning said on “Squawk Box” he’s not denying that climate change is occurring. He just doesn’t believe the evidence proves that the release of carbon dioxide gas, or CO2, is the main culprit.

“Is climate change happening? Certainly. It’s been happening for millennia,” said Fanning, who leads a $49 billion energy giant that brings electricity and natural gas to 9 million customers.

Earlier this month on CNBC, new EPA Administrator Scott Pruittdescribed a view similar to Fanning’s concerning CO2, while calling for more study.

“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” Pruitt told “Squawk Box” on March 9.

But the EPA’s website tells a different story. The “Causes of Climate Change” section states “carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change.”

“Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, release large amounts of CO2, causing concentrations in the atmosphere to rise,” the EPA website adds.


14 Responses to “Clueless Utility Baron: “Climate has been changing for Millenia””

  1. webej Says:

    [1] These types of people don’t realize they are arguing with hard basic physics — they think climate science is some new fad, like women’s studies or nutrition, or some other arguable consensus social phenomena.

    [2] They are so used to a lawyerly universe, that physical reality eludes them altogether. Lawyers like to argue rhetorical probabilities, e.g., “that just because my client buried a shiv in the rib cage of the deceased, this does not actually prove it was the cause of death and that my client killed the deceased. Perhaps the blade just missed the heart or knicked a part of the heart which normallyheals. Perhaps it was the stress and physical his condition that gave him a heart attack. Who’s to say that he did not die from factors unrelated to his heart and that the timing is purely coincidental? The burden of proof remains with the prosecution.”

  2. Sir Charles Says:

    Sounds like Goebbels tactics again: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

  3. Sir Charles Says:

    This video should become compulsory for all these greedy lying bastards:

    • Tom Bates Says:

      Not to throw a monkey wrench into the parade but evidence from alaska of trees from 1000 AD and prior under a glacier would suggest the northern hemisphere was warmer than today back than unless of course trees grow under ice which is unlikely. Maybe all those nice grafts are horse pucky

      The video spends a lot of time on the surface temperatures but the higher altitude temperatures show a decline.

      Speaking of surface temperatures a study of the stations showed 92 percent of the temperatures were estimated. A study of the argo floats shows many many estimates and revisions with those parts of the surface analysis as well.

      It is clearly warmer than it was in the depths of the little ice age for which we owe our lives and that of our families. However, the idea man is responsible for that warming is simply bad science.

      • webej Says:

        Decline of temperatures above the tropopause is one of the central predictions of climate change theory and is a fingerprint of the CO² greenhouse effect. If the warming was uniform throughout the troposphere, it would be a signature of radiative forcing from the sun instead.

        Initially (more than 120 years ago) it was believed that CO² would not increase the effect of the water vapour already present, but CO² spreads throughout the atmosphere whereas water vapour does not. In addition, later study of the absorption bands for different green house gases showed that CO² and water vapour do not completely overlap and the bands are not exactly the same at different altitudes. So much for your NOAA reference.

      • schwadevivre Says:

        Again you persist in your lies and deception. I really hope you are being paid because making yourself such a perfect example of a brain dead ideologue must be really embarrassing in your daily life.

        You have been told this before

        The mediaeval warm period was local not global

        It topped out at a sustained anomaly of + 0.1°C the current sustained anomaly is 5 times as great this.

        Then reduced the ice cover in Alaska and allowed trees to grow. We are finding the trees that grew then because the ice has retreated and trees are again starting to grow in the exposed soil. in 40 years the new growth will be mature trees

        The temperature at higher altitudes is falling because the heat is trapped in the lower atmosphere hence tropospheric temperatures rise and stratospheric temperatures fall. The environment in which we live is the TROPOSHERE.

        Using proxies to estimate temperatures is perfectly normal, you accept those proxies when talking about the MWP but when used to estimate current temperatures you balk, in other words you are just a wally.

        The so-called little ice age was again local not global, the current enhanced temperatures are global.

        The idea that man is NOT responsible for the current changes in climate is not science at all, it is just the most blatant conspiracy theory.

  4. Tom Bates Says:

    lets see, last ice age, warm up, medieval warm up, little ice age,warm up again , still warming and that is only the last 12000 years. Maybe the climate is changing all the time. The question is whether man is actually changing the climate for the worse or better.
    Per NASA research the increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to roughly 400 ppm makes plants grow faster, about 8 percent more. That means 415 million people are alive who otherwise would be dead from starvation. CO2 warming has actually been measured for the period 2000 to 2009. The measured extra warming was found to be 2/10ths of a watt per sq. meter which is 4150 times less than average solar warming and 210 less than warming from changes in earths tilt and orbit per NASA. If the CO2 increased at the same rate to 2100 AD the extra warming from 2000 would be 0.038F. I am pretty sure we can live with that.

    • Torsten Says:

      I’m pretty sure that the person who created the Tom Bates character intended him to look dumber than a bag of rocks.

    • lesliegraham1 Says:

      “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age…Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”

      “In conjunction with an independent Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction ensemble5, this record reveals an extended cold period (1594–1677) in both hemispheres but no globally coherent warm phase during the pre-industrial (1000–1850) era. The current (post-1974) warm phase is the only period of the past millennium where both hemispheres are likely to have experienced contemporaneous warm extremes.”

      If you can link to larger, more comprehensive reconstructions that show otherwise, then do so.

    • webej Says:

      Change is always bad for creatures that adapt slowly. True of mankind, particularly if you take harbours, sea walls, delta’s, established infrastructure, population distribution, farming practices, etc., into account.
      Your numbers are cited apodictically, and you never respond to challenges on them. The numbers are well established and you are doing some dodgy math which you are not showing. Your numbers for the change is decadal, not cumulative. An increase of 0,2 × 10 = 2 watts/m², although the speed is accelerating and the effect has not reached equilibrium. You are obviously failing to take into account that changes in radiation have to be averaged over the whole planet, night and day, in order to compare different measures.

  5. ubrew12 Says:

    “It’s been happening for millennia” Non sequitur. Fanning to Judge: “Your honor, I couldn’t have shot my neighbors dog. Dogs have been dying of natural causes for millennia!”

  6. mbrysonb Says:

    Beliefs and evidence have a pretty tenuous relation; it takes work and attention and understanding to arrive at the kinds of conclusions scientists have reached about climate, evolution, vaccines etc. The process of actually testing beliefs by examining the kinds of evidence we all learn about as we learn to describe our immediate environment reliably doesn’t reach far beyond that practice unless we try very hard to identify direct measurable or calculable implications and learn how to go about testing and establishing them; for most people, apart from whether there’s a vehicle approaching when they’re about to cross the street and similar immediately practical questions, most so-called beliefs (i.e.the things they say) are determined by social factors. In those cases, if there’s a clear answer to the question, ‘what do the people I identify with say?’, that’s enough to “settle the matter” for most people. Thus poor Tom above, demonstrating his allegiance to the rest of the denialist crowd by trying
    (not all that effectively) to irritate ‘the enemy’ with misinformed provocations.

  7. So far, nothing bad has happened due to the slight warming observed over the last century (VERY provocative statement, I know; but saying that more Arctic ice is melting, or that rainfall patterns are different, or that plants are changing blooming times, or animals are migrating, these are all part of the natural process, no matter what the cause is). Projected future warming, and the catastrophic consequences predicted, is speculative. A lot of articles demanding a shift in technology away from fossil fuels use terms like “might”, “could”, “potentially”, etc. to describe their nightmare scenarios.
    You can say that “adaptation will be difficult”; I can say the opposite, neither is correct until proven by observation. The Earth is changing. Life will go on. Not the same as it is, some places better, some places worse. As it has been for millions of years. The notion that the world will be uninhabitable is frightening. As is the notion of Hell in the afterlife. You can choose to live in fear of either, or both, but your beliefs in the unprovable do not affect me. Until you pass legislation to force me to use less efficient and more expensive sources of energy to live.

    And BTW, the comparison of anybody that disagrees with you to Nazism is tiresome, ridiculous, outrageous, and infantile.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: