Another Right Wing Climate Lie: The 'Mini-Ice Age'

Another Right Wing Climate Lie: The ‘Mini-Ice Age’

Right wing media and blogs trumpet yet another false story

EnvironmentJune 2011 • Views: 34,639

In the past couple of weeks, right wing media and blogs have been gleefully trumpeting the latest absurd climate change denial claim — that the Sun is entering a period of low activity, and this will trigger a “mini-ice age.” I haven’t checked all of them, but every right wing blog I did check jumped all over this story, and grandly proclaimed that there’s no need to worry about climate change any more.

Of course, the entire premise was made up out of nothing. But that’s true of almost every climate change denial claim that goes viral in the deranged right wing echo chamber; these people are completely unmoored from reality.

Youtube Video

Jump to bottom

39 comments

Henchman Ghazi-808 Sun, Jun 26, 2011 10:45:24am

To the echo chambers I go. Leave breakfast on the table, this shouldn't take long.

Obdicut Sun, Jun 26, 2011 10:47:03am

The reality: the decrease in sunspot activity may cause about .5 degrees of cooling. This will be vastly overridden by the projected 4-8 degrees of heating from AGW.

Charles Johnson Sun, Jun 26, 2011 10:48:47am

Here's Ed Morrissey showing his idiocy once again:

A new Ice Age approaches? « Hot Air

Morrissey falls for every one of these lies.

Killgore Trout Sun, Jun 26, 2011 10:59:28am

Another weather page here: What's To Blame For Wild Weather? 'La Nada'
the past 2 years has been brutal here in the Northwest. Cold, dark and rainy almost all year long. I planted squash and tomatoes again today for the third time this year. It's been so cold and wet that the summer crops are having a tough time. Almost no chance of getting ripe tomatoes this year.

Henchman Ghazi-808 Sun, Jun 26, 2011 11:06:24am

As Potholer summarized nicely, the echo chamber blogs are extrapolating a scientific assessment from actual science (the sun is potentially entering another minimum which could cool the earth).

The problem is that it's too little too late. The accepted scientific parameters are what Obdicut posted: .3 C of cooling if sun goes into Minimum, but you have to deduct that from 2.5 to 4 C of warming from CO2. The 2.5/4 C projection is the most conservative estimates, 4-8 C may not be out of the realm of possibility.

In essence, this changes nothing.

William Barnett-Lewis Sun, Jun 26, 2011 11:22:24am

Ever since the idea of AGW began there's been a right wing fantasy that an ice age is really immanent instead. See [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
for a particularly bad variation on the theme that ebil environmentalists/libruls causes the ice age with their anti-AGW silliness.

JAFO Sun, Jun 26, 2011 11:23:48am

Actually the Sun is just exiting a prolonged Solar Minimum that lasted ~3 years. We are now headed to Solar Maximum in the next 5 years. Science, how does it work?

Varek Raith Sun, Jun 26, 2011 11:24:00am

re: #6 wlewisiii

Ever since the idea of AGW began there's been a right wing fantasy that an ice age is really immanent instead. See [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
for a particularly bad variation on the theme that ebil environmentalists/libruls causes the ice age with their anti-AGW silliness.

Larry Niven?
I am disappointed.

researchok Sun, Jun 26, 2011 11:26:34am

Flat earthers too, went to great lengths in defending their 'science' and Copernicus suffered great abuse from those who had problems with reality and change.

The deniers are in ignoble company.

watching you tiny alien kittens are Sun, Jun 26, 2011 11:33:09am

Since man has observed the sun directly courtesy of Galileo the Sun has waxed and waned in sunspot activity over a roughly 11 year cycle on average. What is actually being discussed here and needs to be emphasized is not that the sun has suddenly grown colder, or that solar flares have stopped, just a couple of weeks ago we had a mass ejecta event that led to headlines around the world warning of satellite disruption and even power grid failures. All that is being said here is that the sunspot activity has not increased as much as expected based on the past observations of the eleven year cycle!

The sun has been around for over five billion years and we have only been accurately observing it's activity levels for about two hundred of them. So the Sun has been quieter than what we have come to expect as normal for four years when it should have been becoming more active again and making things even worse for us heating wise.

How about we just count our blessings and move on since the majority of the worst documented heating in the last decade occurred when the Sun was at "solar minimum" and therefore could not have contributed to the heating?

And they say We want it both ways? They blamed the Sun for heating when it was at minimum and then they turn around and predict Cooling because it has only become a little more active?

Idiots...

rwmofo Sun, Jun 26, 2011 11:39:16am

As a card-carrying member of the "right-wing" I'll take a moment to interject a few observations:

1) Previously this subject was called "global warming" before it was readily apparent that this term didn't have sufficient traction knowing that the trend could have downward "fluctuations" - or something. So now it's called "climate change."

2) Skeptics. Who's skeptical and of what? Does the climate change? Sure. But what should be done about it? Many--far too many--from the angry left want to immediately go after "big oil." Punish the oil companies. Make them pay. Look around. Every piece of furniture, the carpet, the paint, the windows, the appliances, the food in your kitchen. OK, you get the point. All the above was on a truck before you bought it. So our leftist friends want to increase the price of oil because that's the problem. Consequence? Everything you consume will cost more while we're waiting on "green technologies" to be adequately developed to replace the fuel we count on today - which is at the core of our economy. The poorest will be hit the hardest.

This in a nutshell drives the skepticism. Not climate change. The consequences of leftist reactionary policy.

3) Will we easily be able to force China, India and others to follow us down the path of economic destruction? Yeah, right. Let me know how that goes.

4) What are left-wing politicians doing in the meantime? Standing in the way of drilling in ANWR and the coastal areas of the US where we know billions of gallons of oil exists, while doing exactly what to wean us off of foreign dependency?

...but if it rains, your sports team loses, your GF dumps you or your kid doesn't turn out the way you planned, you can always blame George Bush.

Smithers, release the hounds!

Henchman Ghazi-808 Sun, Jun 26, 2011 11:45:03am

re: #11 rwmofo

1) That's because people can't understand how there can be in increase in snow or lower temps in some areas. Climate change is a better term. But I think you're trying to infer some subversive element at play in word change, which is a pathetic FAIL.

2) So you admit that right wing reaction to AGW is political dogma and not science? That's the most honest thing I've ever seen you post.

3) You are assuming The Tragedy of the Commons, another canard. And assuming 'economic destruction,' another canard. Can we at least accept that AGW is true then move to what to do about?

4) Changing the subject.....

Admonishment to get downdinged because you dare to tell the truth. Fail. Have a down ding troll.

[deleted] Sun, Jun 26, 2011 11:55:24am

Henchman Ghazi-808 Sun, Jun 26, 2011 11:57:36am

re: #13 MikeySDCA

How is that denying Charle's conventional wisdom? The recent reports is are that the sun is not acting according to the trend noted in your link.

Charles Johnson Sun, Jun 26, 2011 12:01:16pm

re: #13 MikeySDCA

At the risk of a downding storm for defying Charles's conventional wisdom:
The Sunspot Cycle from NASA.

How does that "defy" my "conventional wisdom?" Odd way to put it, since all I'm trying to do is bring some scientific facts into this discussion. I didn't make up these facts.

And the NASA page you linked is a good description of the Maunder Minimum and its effects, which nobody is denying.

But there's no mention of a "mini-ice age," which is the entire point of this post.

Charles Johnson Sun, Jun 26, 2011 12:03:10pm

re: #11 rwmofo

It's nice to see a right winger actually admit that all the lies, all the phony graphs and phony stories like this one, endlessly passed around blogs and Fox News, are just falsehoods told for political advantage. Thanks for clarifying that.

jaunte Sun, Jun 26, 2011 12:06:06pm

re: #11 rwmofo

What are left-wing politicians doing in the meantime? Standing in the way of drilling in ANWR and the coastal areas of the US where we know billions of gallons of oil exists, while doing exactly what to wean us off of foreign dependency?

Encouraging people to understand the science and admit that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, rather than continuing to deny it, and continuing to kick the can down the road.

William Barnett-Lewis Sun, Jun 26, 2011 12:10:57pm

re: #8 Varek Raith

Larry Niven?
I am disappointed.

He get's dragged into bad stuff by Pournelle quite often. Especially when Pournelle is in one of his feudalism/fascism worshiping modes.

[deleted] Sun, Jun 26, 2011 12:14:37pm

Henchman Ghazi-808 Sun, Jun 26, 2011 12:19:34pm

re: #19 MikeySDCA

How is this potential sunspot decline, projected to (at worst) lead to a -.3 C decline, when AGW impacts are scientifically estimated to be anywhere from 2.5 C to 8 C?

The assumption that this will lead to a Mini Ice Age is made by the bloggers, not the scientists reporting on the decline in sunspot activity. Which is exactly the point of Potholer's video. Did you even watch it?

Charles Johnson Sun, Jun 26, 2011 12:36:39pm

re: #19 MikeySDCA

This is about the Little Ice Age, which is ignored or scoffed at by the ahistorical Al Gore school.

Uh, no -- the claim being promoted by right wing blogs and media is that the Maunder Minimum will cause ANOTHER mini-ice age.

You're confusing the description of a historical ice age with the subject under discussion.

claire Sun, Jun 26, 2011 1:47:24pm

The head line is misleading: "Earth Facing a mini-ice age"
The sub headline could be sort of correct:
"A sharp decrease in global warming may result."

A decrease in warming means it could still warm, just not as much, as noted in the comments. It doesn't mean it will cool a lot, or even a little.

Fortunately, the actual body of the article is somewhat clearer:

Sceptics of man-made global warming from the burning of fossil fuels have often pointed to solar radiation as a possible cause of a warming Earth, but they are in the minority among scientists.
Earth has warmed as solar activity has decreased.

Mr Hill and his colleagues wouldn't discuss the effects of a quiet sun on temperature or global warming.

'If our predictions are true, we'll have a wonderful experiment that will determine whether the sun has any effect on global warming,' he said.

Unfortunately, most people won't read to the bottom.

The lesson? Don't get your science from a Brit tabloid.

re: #7 mracb

We are headed to possibly the lowest maximum in 100 years, portending that the next one may be even lower. That's how that works.

mikec6666 Sun, Jun 26, 2011 1:50:17pm

time to start a company which makes long johns with i luv jesus on them -- you'll make a million dollars

sauceruney Sun, Jun 26, 2011 2:38:05pm

Mini Dark Age, maybe, but we know what's causing that.

b_sharp Sun, Jun 26, 2011 2:56:41pm

re: #11 rwmofo

As a card-carrying member of the "right-wing" I'll take a moment to interject a few observations:

1) Previously this subject was called "global warming" before it was readily apparent that this term didn't have sufficient traction knowing that the trend could have downward "fluctuations" - or something. So now it's called "climate change."

This is bullshit. The term 'Climate Change' predates 'AGW' in the scientific literature. AGW was commonly used until Frank Luntz from what was called at the time, circa 2003, Luntz Research Inc, suggested to the Repubs they stress climate change over warming because it spins less frighteningly.

b_sharp Sun, Jun 26, 2011 3:03:07pm

re: #19 MikeySDCA

This is about the Little Ice Age, which is ignored or scoffed at by the ahistorical Al Gore school.

The little ice age is not ignored. Where do you get off making such a stupid claim?

What gets ignored by the denialists is that each swing in temperature has a cause, they don't just 'happen' and there are in fact several causes, including increasing GHGs.

Assuming this new swing is caused by the same processes as previous swings without actually eliminating the old causes and investigating potential new causes is about as scientific as astrology.

[deleted] Sun, Jun 26, 2011 5:38:13pm

Charles Johnson Sun, Jun 26, 2011 5:38:58pm

re: #27 MikeySDCA

I was right that questioning the conventional wisdom, and especially blaspheming St. Al of Gore, would get me a storm of down-dings, including Charles.

True, you were right, and I even answered your post.

Decatur Deb Sun, Jun 26, 2011 5:40:38pm

re: #27 MikeySDCA

I was right that questioning the conventional wisdom, and especially blaspheming St. Al of Gore, would get me a storm of down-dings, including Charles.

It works even faster if you strangle a kitten and Youtube it.

b_sharp Sun, Jun 26, 2011 5:53:59pm

re: #27 MikeySDCA

I was right that questioning the conventional wisdom, and especially blaspheming St. Al of Gore, would get me a storm of down-dings, including Charles.

So?

Comments that promote lies get downdinged. How hard is it to predict that?

Henchman Ghazi-808 Sun, Jun 26, 2011 5:58:26pm

re: #27 MikeySDCA

I was right that questioning the conventional wisdom, and especially blaspheming St. Al of Gore, would get me a storm of down-dings, including Charles.

Spare us the victimhood. You obviously don't comprehend the issue yet think you're asking a pertinent question.

Basho Sun, Jun 26, 2011 9:00:58pm

re: #11 rwmofo

re: #25 b_sharp

“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

-Luntz, giving advice to Republicans

wheat-dogghazi Sun, Jun 26, 2011 9:19:22pm

re: #11 rwmofo

I can't comment on India's plans, but China has been pretty aggressive in promoting wind and solar energy lately. They are quickly building out a high speed rail system to link the major cities (Beijing - Shanghai HSR opens July 1 - 5 hours to cover 1300 km), which removes reliance on air transport and less efficient, slower trains. China depends heavily on coal for its electrical generation, and most of its power plants are "dirty," meaning they don't scrub exhaust gases very well. These are slowly being converted. Newer plants are cleaner.

You seem to believe that switching to "green" technologies will plunge the US (or China) into an economic meltdown. Sure, "green" light bulbs cost more initially, but over their lifetime cost far less to operate than a conventional incandescent. Electric cars would need less maintenance over their lifetimes than comparable internal combustion cars (perhaps excepting diesels). HSR uses less fuel than jetliners. The economy will just adapt, as it did when railroads, cars and planes were introduced, not plunge into depression.

Japan has found out the hard way that following conventional wisdom can be a catastrophic mistake. Likewise, expecting that (1) we will be able to find and tap into reserves of petroleum that are increasingly harder to reach and (2) we will be able to continue to burn petroleum products at an ever-increasing rate without damaging the climate is suicidal folly.

In some ways, I understand people who are skeptical about AGW, but also befuddled by their lack of caution. You are free to believe that AGW is a crock of shit, but what if you're wrong? If we really are screwing up the Earth, by the time the deniers realize their mistake and get on board, it will be too late to fix the damage. There are no re-dos here. We can't start over with another Earth, so it's wiser to be careful with the one home we have.

Aesop's fable about the ant and grasshopper comes to mind. AGW scientists are the ants, and the deniers are the grasshoppers. If we take the ants' advice, the grasshoppers can hop from leaf to leaf without a care in the world. If we take the grasshoppers' advice, we'll all have a lot more to worry about it.

srjh Sun, Jun 26, 2011 9:47:30pm

re: #19 MikeySDCA

Why on earth would global warming proponents want to hide from the Little Ice Age? If the minor forcing effect of a solar minimum ends up having a profound effect on the climate, it means the climate is sensitive to small changes in radiative forcing and a forcing due to greenhouse emissions (known to be substantially stronger than the solar cycle) should also have a profound effect on the climate.

There's no rejection of the idea of past natural climate change, just the ridiculous notion that because the climate has changed naturally in the past, humans can't have a significant impact ourselves.

lostlakehiker Mon, Jun 27, 2011 1:05:42am

re: #11 rwmofo

As a card-carrying member of the "right-wing" I'll take a moment to interject a few observations:

1) Previously this subject was called "global warming" before it was readily apparent that this term didn't have sufficient traction knowing that the trend could have downward "fluctuations" - or something. So now it's called "climate change."

2) Skeptics. Who's skeptical and of what? Does the climate change? Sure. But what should be done about it? [snip] Consequence? Everything you consume will cost more while we're waiting on "green technologies" to be adequately developed to replace the fuel we count on today - which is at the core of our economy. The poorest will be hit the hardest.

This in a nutshell drives the skepticism. Not climate change. The consequences of leftist reactionary policy.

3) Will we easily be able to force China, India and others to follow us down the path of economic destruction? Yeah, right. Let me know how that goes.

4) What are left-wing politicians doing in the meantime? Standing in the way of drilling in ANWR and the coastal areas of the US where we know billions of gallons of oil exists, while doing exactly what to wean us off of foreign dependency?

...but if it rains, your sports team loses, your GF dumps you or your kid doesn't turn out the way you planned, you can always blame George Bush.

Smithers, release the hounds!

As another member of the RW, I'll make an observation or two.

First, nothing can possibly be done to turn the course of events if neither India nor China care to come aboard. But what's the harm in inviting them to cooperate in moving toward green energy? Each has at least as much to lose as we do.

Neither has any Republican to tell them that the earth is flat so it can't get any warmer.

Second, most anything will show fluctuations. If you go to the roulette table, you may win, and you may lose. If you stay and play, you'll probably end up a loser, despite your occasional runs of good luck.

If you play heavily and regularly, you will certainly lose. You see, the fluctuations are random variations riding a downward trend. It's the same with global warming. The trend is that we are putting ever more CO2 into the atmosphere, and far faster than natural processes can take it back out.

So we are playing heavily and regularly with fire. We're losing. Go figure. For now, we have no "green" energy infrastructure at the necessary scale to run an industrial civilization. Nor does India or China. So, if only to stay alive while we build that infrastructure, we must continue to use fossil fuel. This includes oil. We will still need oil for plastics etc., even after we go to wind, solar, and nuclear plus bit players. But that conversion, when it's achieved, will sufficiently reduce our CO2 emissions that we can avoid the worst consequences we would otherwise face.

You're arguing that you're skeptical because you'll be materially adversely impacted by the changes we say are needed. Well, yes, you will be. But here's a metaphor. You've been told you have cancer.

You will be adversely affected by surgery. There are side effects. There are costs. There is pain. But what of the alternative? In your immediate future, if you look only a bit ahead, there is no cost to going on with life as usual. Nothing bad will happen in that time frame.

Do you have a longer time frame? Because there is pain, and costs, and more pain, and death, down that other road.

The organizing principle of "the right" is realism. If we can't face hard facts and make hard choices, then we're nothing.

Eventual Carrion Mon, Jun 27, 2011 9:46:25am

re: #11 rwmofo

, you can always blame George Bush.

Smithers, release the hounds!

GWB needn't be blamed, he was just a meat-puppet. It is his handlers that should shoulder all the blame.

Eventual Carrion Mon, Jun 27, 2011 9:51:18am

re: #27 MikeySDCA

I was right that questioning the conventional wisdom, and especially blaspheming St. Al of Gore, would get me a storm of down-dings, including Charles.

You must be so butt-hurt.

sproingie Mon, Jun 27, 2011 10:00:33am

Sunspot activity? Not so much.

Melting the Greenland ice sheet, dumping it into the Atlantic, and disrupting the Atlantic current? Yeah that could put a chill on places like England. But I'm certain that the first snowflake that falls there will be taken as proof that there's no warming, nosirree, pay no mind to the big ice cube we melted into the drink...

Mark Winter Mon, Jun 27, 2011 1:18:31pm

re: #11 rwmofo

1) Previously this subject was called "global warming" before it was readily apparent that this term didn't have sufficient traction knowing that the trend could have downward "fluctuations" - or something. So now it's called "climate change."

In Germany, the candybar Twix used to be called Raider. Now it's called Twix, too. I can assure you that it's still the same thing. You won't find a scientist who his concerned about climate change but NOT about global warming. All scenarios are about warming, nothing else.

2) Skeptics. Who's skeptical and of what?

True. They are not skeptics. They are in denial. In denial of the obvious

3) Will we easily be able to force China, India and others to follow us down the path of economic destruction? Yeah, right. Let me know how that goes.

Listen to Chinese scientists (I've met them) and their opinions on AGW match ours. China is already waking up to the fact that climate doesn't respect the Great Wall like the Mongols.

4) What are left-wing politicians doing in the meantime? Standing in the way of drilling in ANWR and the coastal areas of the US where we know billions of gallons of oil exists, while doing exactly what to wean us off of foreign dependency?

Solar, wind and hydroelectric energies are booming. Where have you been in the last decade?

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Another Right Wing Climate Lie: The ‘Mini-Ice Age’

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud