7 REASONS Why Activist Orgs Like NatGeo (Sadly) Cannot Be Trusted On Anything “Climate Change”Posted: April 19, 2017
A MUST READ unemotional and clinical scientific rebuttal of National Geographic’s latest climate change hysteria and groupthink propaganda rhetoric…
Yet another example of why – sadly – mainstream media activist outlets like the once respected NatGeo cannot be trusted on anything
global warming climate change.
7 part series via our friends over at Paul Homewood’s excellent site – notalotofpeopleknowthat:
1. Seven things to know about climate change–National Geographic
National Geographic has long lost any scientific credibility on climate change issues. It’s new project, “Seven things to know about climate change”, does nothing to restore it.
In fact, as their graph clearly shows, temperatures have been steadily rising the 19thC, long before CO2 emissions could have made any noticeable difference.
Why is there no mention that the Little Ice Age, culminating in the late 19thC, is known to be probably the coldest period in Earth’s history since the end of the last Ice Age?
They also mention satellite measurements, but strangely forget to state that atmospheric temperatures last year were no higher than in 1998.
2. Second Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 2 – Colourless, odourless, trace gas and plant food – carbon dioxide (CO2) hysteria… (Climatism comment)
They fail to explain why global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980, at the same time as CO2 emissions were rising rapidly.
They also forget to mention the role that the great ocean cycles played in 20thC warming. The post 1940 cool down coincided with the shift of both PDO and AMO to cold phase.
Similarly post 1980 warming was in large part the result of a return to warm phase for both cycles.
3. Third Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 3 – The fake “97% consensus” revered worldwide by the likes of Barack Obama, cooked up by cartoonist and professional climate activist John Cook. Following on from the bogus Doran/Zimmerman study of 2009: http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp-comment/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats (Climatism comment)
The main cause of global warming? Err, well no actually.
According to the Cook study quoted, only 65 papers found explicitly found that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming.
I make that 1.6%, not 97%.
Full details are here.
Virtually all scientists accept that man has some effect on climate, even if only through urbanisation. The Cook study is therefore pretty much worthless anyway, as the authors knew before they published it.
But the fact that only 65 papers identified humans as the primary cause is extremely damning to the supposed consensus.
If humans are actually responsible for less than half of recent warming, the whole scare story falls apart.
Prof Mike Hulme of the Tyndall Centre summed up just how meaningless Cook’s study was:
The [Cook et al.] article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in [an earlier study]: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?
4. Fourth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 4 – Starting your Arctic sea ice extent graph at the century maximum of 1979… (Climatism comment)
Even their graph of Arctic sea ice extent shows that the ice has stabilised since 2007. They are, of course, hoping that readers will not notice this.
They start their graph in 1979, at the end of a period when the Arctic had been getting colder for three decades.
In Climate, History and the Modern World, HH Lamb wrote (in 1982):
The cooling of the Arctic since 1950-60 has been most marked in the very same regions which experienced the strongest warming in the earlier decades of the 20thC, namely the central Arctic and northernmost parts of the two great continents remote from the world’s oceans, but also in the Norwegian-East Greenland Sea….
A greatly increased flow of the cold East Greenland Current has in several years (especially 1968 and 1969, but also 1965, 1975 and 1979) brought more Arctic sea ice to the coasts of Iceland than for fifty years. In April-May 1968 and 1969, the island was half surrounded by ice, as had not occurred since 1888.
Such sea ice years have always been dreaded in Iceland’s history because of the depression of summer temperatures and the effects on farm production….. The 1960’s also saw the abandonment of attempts at grain growing in Iceland, which had been resumed in the warmer decades of this century after a lapse of some hundreds of years…
And during the earlier decades of warming, which he mentions, we know that temperatures around the Arctic were at similar levels to today.
For instance, Nuuk in Greenland:
The warming and cooling cycles in the Arctic have nothing at all to do with global warming, but follow the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a perfectly natural event, which NOAA says has been occurring for at least the last 1000 years.
As for the Antarctic, the land ice mass there is actually growing, according to satellite altimeters.
They also mention glaciers, but do not tell their readers that glaciers worldwide grew massively between the Middle Ages and the mid 19thC, in other words during the Little Ice Age. (See here.)
They began retreating around the mid 19thC, and observations show that the rate of recession was greater then and in the early 20thC than it is now.
As glaciers melt, we are finding the remains of forests, carbon dated to the Middle Ages, as far apart as Alaska and Patagonia. Clearly glaciers are simply returning to their natural state prior to the Little Ice Age.
5. Fifth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 5 – The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con
“by most metrics, extreme weather events are becoming ‘less’ extreme as CO2 increases.”
There is no doubt that the “extreme weather lie” is one of the most fraudulent aspects of the whole climate scam.
Even the IPCC’s SREX report could not find any evidence that that extreme weather was increasing.
National Geographic’s claim is based on the above graph from Munich Re, showing the number of “global natural disasters”. But how are these defined?
Clearly every single flood, storm and so on is not counted. According to Munich Re themselves:
Taking very small events out of the equation, 750 relevant loss events [in 2016]such as earthquakes, storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves were recorded in the Munich Re NatCatSERVICE database.
So what determines a “relevant event”. The answer of course is heavily weighted to economic cost. While this may have relevance to the insurance industry, it has little bearing on climate trends.
As the European Environment Agency explained in their “Damages from weather and climate-related events” report in 2012:
- The observed damage increase is primarily due to increases in population, economic wealth and human activities in hazard-prone areas and to better reporting.
- It is currently difficult to determine accurately the proportion of damage costs that are attributable to climate change.
Roger Pielke Jnr, a leading expert on the cost of disasters, has repeatedly shown claims that extreme weather is getting worse to be worthless. His graph below sums the whole topic up well.
Note that it is based on Munich Re’s own database.
Of course, Munich Re have a vested interest in pretending that weather disasters are on the increase, as it allows them to push up their insurance premiums.
Despite a supposedly calamitous year for disasters, Munich Re actually made a profit of Eu2.6bn in 2016, well ahead of its target of Eu2.3bn.
Most of this profit came from the reinsurance business, which made Eu2.5bn.
6. The Sixth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
PART 6 – “There are many threats facing eco systems, but a barely noticeable increase in temperature is not one of them.”
In 1982, HH Lamb wrote about how the ranges of birds and fishes had moved poleward in the first half of the 20thC.
When the Earth started cooling around 1960, this movement was reversed. All that animal and plant species are doing is returning to where they were a half a century or so ago.
7. The Seventh Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic
It is hard to know where to start with this load of garbage!
1) If climate change was not a serious danger, would 195 countries have signed the Paris Agreement, pledging to keep the warming below 2C?
Clearly National Geographic have failed to read what actually was agreed at Paris.
For a start, the Agreement itself actually states that, under the “pledges” made, emissions will continue to rise. To meet the 2C scenario, they would need to be cut by at least half.
Secondly, the vast majority of the 195 countries, including China and India, are designated as “developing” countries. As such, the Paris Agreement places no obligation on them at all to cut emissions, as it does on developed nations.
2) Switch to renewables
They claim that we can save the planet by switching to renewable energy. Yet even their own graph shows that, although the use of renewable energy will roughly double by 2040, this will be dwarfed by the increasing use of fossil fuels.
The reason for this is very simple – the demand for cheap, reliable energy is growing fast amongst developing countries, as their economies expand and the expectations of their people for a better standard of living grow.
Renewable energy, such as wind and solar, is utterly incapable of meeting this demand.
The sort of emission cuts needed “to do something” would condemn billions of people to grinding poverty.
3) In the US, solar now employs more people than coal, oil and gas combined.
Given that solar only provides 0.4% of the US’s energy, this fatuous statement shows just how inefficient solar power really is.
BP Energy Review 2016
4) We can do something about it!
Who is this WE?
In the last decade or so, emissions have been slowly dropping in the US and EU, and now only account for 27% of global CO2.
Meanwhile, emissions in China and the rest of the world have been rocketing upwards.
BP Energy Review 2016
Even if US and EU emissions dropped to zero, it would only take global emissions back to their level in 2002, and make next to no difference to the climate.
This whole series from National Geographic has from start to finish been based on a combination of irrelevant, fake and cherry picked data.
Sadly this seems to sum up the low standards that it has now sunk to.
National Geographic Climate Change Alarmism Related :
- You Were Lied To About Arctic Sea Ice Disappearing | Climatism
- What “permanent drought”? New all-time rainfall record set for California | Climatism
- National Geographic : Global Warming Makes People Throw Acid In Each Other’s Faces | Climatism
- National Geographic Goes Full Criminal | Climatism
- National Geographic’s Junk Science: How long will it take for sea level rise to reach midway up the Statue of Liberty? | Climatism
- Spectacular Climate Fraud From National Geographic | Climatism
- Mind Blowing Sea Level Fraud At National Geographic | Climatism
- National Geographic Exposes Their Real Agenda | Climatism