Great article Walter ThanQ for sharing.
It is great , because to me it points out the manipulation of short term data to determine a longer term result and that’s is no way to predict the future. In fact climate is based on about 35 years of weather experience and a few degrees warmer or colder does not change a climate
Also the historical cycles of the sun is mentioned. Bravo. The sun is a constant only in the fact that it is 93 million miles away. Sunrise and sunset like clock work. One danger of these climate scare tactics (ignoring the sun) is to force free people to alter the quality of life in a negative way. This you point out very well. A greater danger is to not educate or prepare civilization’s response to the Grand Solar Minimum. A period we are just entering. GSM can have devastating effects on our food supply. Many will potentially die from starvation and it could be addressed with indoor farming.
New data and evidence is emerging the the Sun has micronova’d in the past many times During its cycle. For further info see OldUglyCarls series of posts on this topic.

Well then, WDonway, you, like so many before you who have moved from Long Island to Melbourne, FL, can join us. It's not Galt's Gulch, but it's got a lot going for it.

Did they also vote to stop the river from flowing? There was a poem later uncovered in the 19th cent (I believe) on the walls of Pompei after the volcano covered it: (It went something like this) One might as well try to stop the rivers from flowing or the tides from rising as to stop young lovers from loving. I guess they didn't have the right to vote there LOL

Move to flyover country. Cost of living is low, business is good, and nobody tries to increase the rate of theft by trying to scare people about sea level rise.

Easy, give Nestle water rights to bottle the stuff!
Charge them 10 cents a gallon that they remove, and use that to beautify the area. Limit their water to the amount that stops it from rising above some critical level. Done!

Thanks to everyone for the excellent comments and for Dobrien's taking the time to comment at length. Especially relevant to comment on the role of the sun is my earlier article on the concerted attempt to destroy Willie Soon, an Astrophysicist who maintains that the explanation of long term climate should be sought in the changing states of the sun. It can be found along with my other articles on the "climate catastrophe" hypothesis on the "Savvy Street" site. Thanks, again.

Well, hooray, is this the start of something new?

Excellent article. Thank you! A few observations:

"Argument by intimidation" was well used by the Soviets in that dissidents having an anti-Soviet thought was indication of mental illness and a "mental institution" was the place for such people.

This whole global-cooling, global-warming, climate-change hoopla is reminiscent of times when someone (or the whole tribe) just HAD to be at fault for something totally natural and sacrifices had to be made to appease the gods or whatever powers that be. It seems some people still need a human scapegoat for anything that pops up. Hence, the town votes...

I still adhere to my own theory that we will know for sure global warming is taking place when the elites initiate a massive sell off of beach front property (the recent proposed land grab of such property by the State of Kalifornia doesn't count because that is simply a theft plan to generate revenue for the failing socialist State by renting said property back to the original owners).

Thank you for sharing the information.

It is good to know/read about the work of sane people as opposed to the hysteria of the left and MSM.

As far as I'm concerned Nature Conservancy are a bunch of thugs (Trashing the Economy) they have millions of dollars in their coffers they shouldn't be making demands of Long Island cities to make changes because of alleged "Climate Change". I could very well bankrupt them then I guess Nature Conservancy would come in a bulldoze those cities for their own purposes.

I have read that Greenland was once, centuries ago, a lot less cold and snowy--thus the name "Greenland".

Not only your town is going crazy about climate change, your and my undergraduate institution is as well. Brown University has just announced: "To create a more sustainable campus and confront what scientists have declared an increasingly dire threat posed by global climate change, Brown University has set an aggressive goal to cut its campus greenhouse gas emissions by 75 percent by 2025, and to achieve net-zero no later than 2040."

This is a well-written article, Walter, as you are wont to do.

More fundamentally, there has as yet been no proof that additions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere cause any significant rise in temperature. The many computer models speculating a temperature increase have proven to at the least be great exaggerations and to be sufficiently different from one another that they actually prove that there is no consensus on the physics of the effects of CO2. Worse yet, CO2 has both warming and cooling effects and you have never heard about its cooling effects -- not many of you, anyway. The cooling effects are less saturated in many cases than is the main warming effect which requires an 800 ppm increase to match the present 400 ppm effect and has clearly been exaggerated. Very little study has gone into the cooling effects.

Still worse, as I have written on my blog An Objectivist Individualist, the Earth Energy Budgets so often embraced by the catastrophic man-made global warming alarmists, including NASA and the UN IPCC reports, violate the Conservation of Energy and apply their own faulty understanding of thermal radiation inconsistently. According to them, the atmosphere absorbs more longwave radiation from the surface of the Earth than a black body absorber could absorb even at temperature lower than those found in the atmosphere, even though the greenhouse gases can at best only absorb portions of the total wavelength spectrum of the radiation emitted from the surface. Another transparent error is the claim that the same thermal vibrations that produce thermal radiation by oscillating electric dipoles can dump 100% of their energy into radiation, while at the same time dumping energy into the evaporation of water and transferring energy into convection currents. It is amazing how you can exaggerate an effect once you are willing to throw the principle of Conservation of Energy out the window. So, there is good reason to expect their many computer models to produce the wrong results they have produced.

I read recently that only 2% of the country even knows about Sun activity, Grand Solar Minimum, decreasing sunspots or Sun's cooling! No wonder the nightly scare by AOC and CNN is believed, people are not doing homework. I have asked several people if they know the Earth's magnetic poles are shifting, and way too many had no idea. HAARP has been ignored and most did not know it bent the jet stream. How can they reasonably make a decision on coastlines and stealing private property in the name of global (faux) warming, if they don't even know we are headed into a mini ice age? Newscasters read new, they do not verify it's truth. AOC does nto even understand her major in college, much less the field of science. People better wake up or freedoms and rith to own property is going to be lost, per UN Agenda 21 nonsense.

I recently attended an event where David Friedman (son of Milton & Rose Friedman) gave a lecture on many of the climate related issues. He discussed such unresolved matters as to whether bad effects of climate change actually outweigh good effects. And the probable 100 yards of horizontal change in coastlines, which would be undetectable on any macroscopic map. And the cost vs. effect of the US doing anything compared to underdeveloped countries contunuing with their current endeavors.
But the big example of where climate change appears to be heading by the turn of the century: Minnesota may have the climate currently found in Iowa. Sound the disaster alarms!

Global warming advocates with their condemnation of their adversaries as imbeciles remind me of those in earlier centuries who embraced a geocentric model of the celestial bodies and persecuted those who believed in a heliocentric model. What disturbs me more than the ad hominem attacks is the expanded statism that all these people appear to embrace as the answer to the "problem".

What will happen when the ice caps melt?
If you take a half glass of water, add a cube of ice, mark the level of water with the ice, then let it melt in the water. What happens to the level after the ice melts? So then, what happens when the ice cap melts?

This article could be the basis for the logical contortions people will make to reality be what they wish it were. I want the next article to be about our ancestors happily watching over us from heaven despite the alarmists' evidence that the brain evolved naturally and is the seat of the soul. Since science changes with the evidence instead of picking a desired "reality" and sticking to it, we really don't know anything. Why not pick what we wish were true?