Paul Homewood of NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT recently posted a blog listing ten reasons countering climate “scientist” Katharine Hayhoe’s assertion that some of us don’t believe in global warming because we don’t care!
I don’t know a single person who doesn’t “care” about the planet or their environment. So, it would appear Katharine is using more of that divisive and marginalising language favoured by the totalitarian Left, in preference to facts and reason, in a deliberate effort to force you into a narrow set of beliefs that align with the alarmist orthodoxy.
By extension, these ten points lay out fundamental reasoning as to why increasingly, more and more climate truth-seekers are forming a sceptical view of the hayhoe-hysterical “climate change” debate.
And, they happen to make an excellent resource for your next friendly climate debate!
1) We don’t trust climate scientists.
The Climategate emails revealed just how untrustworthy the climate establishment has become.
We know that literally billions in grants are being shovelled their way, and that these grants would quickly dry up if they dropped their alarmism.
2) We don’t like being misled.
You, Katharine, have form in this respect, as you know.
It was you who claimed, in a magazine article in 2011, that increasing winter temperatures in Texas were a sign of climate change.
You came to this conclusion by starting your analysis in 1965, right at the start of a cold period.
You, of course, must have known that warming since then was just part of a cycle, and that temperatures have actually changed little since the 1920s.
Texas Winter Mean Temperatures
3) It was hotter in the 1930s
We are aware that temperatures across the US were considerable higher in the 1930s than in recent years.
Is it surprising that people are not in the least concerned about current climate?
4) It was warmer in the Middle Ages
Despite various attempts to disappear the MWP, evidence worldwide indicates that the climate was just as warm then as now, and that previous warm periods, such as the Roman and Minoan, were warmer still.
There is nothing unprecedented about current climate, so why should we be concerned?
5) The 19thC was the coldest period since the ice age
Ice cores show that the Little Ice Age was an exceptionally cold time. Why should we be surprised or concerned that there has been a small amount of warming since?
6) Cold kills
There can be no question at all that our current climate is beneficial compared with the cold of the Little Ice Age.
Or maybe you would prefer to return to that age of famine, cold, storms, floods and drought?
7) Extreme weather is not increasing
Despite climate scientists attempts to blame every bit of bad weather on climate change, there is no evidence that extreme weather is getting worse.
Droughts in the US, that were severe and widespread in the 1930s and 50s, have become much less of a problem since.
The US has now gone 11 years without a major hurricane, the longest such period on record.
The USGS can find no evidence that flooding has got worse.
And tornado activity has also diminished significantly since the cold years of the 1970s.
8) We don’t trust your data
Global temperature data has continually been adjusted to show more warming.
Yet the satellite data continues to diverge from surface data, and still shows temperatures have not increased since 1998.
9) Apocalypse never comes
For many years, we have been fed scare stories of apocalypse round the corner. These, of course, never materialise.
If climate scientists were to treat us with a bit of respect, honestly admitted that they have little idea of what is to come, and stopped trying to intimidate us with silly scares, you might find that we returned that respect.
10) Redistribution of wealth
Your attempts to treat us like children and trust the nice scientists ignore the issue.
Regardless of the science, the whole issue of climate change has been hijacked by politicians, the UN and a veritable army of vested interests.
People are not stupid, and know that developed countries have committed to transferring $100bn a year to developing ones, as part of the Paris Agreement.
Christina Figueres herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism.
- 15 Questions Why Climate Change Is A Complete Hoax | Climatism
- 7 REASONS Why Activist Orgs Like NatGeo (Sadly) Cannot Be Trusted On Anything “Climate Change” | Climatism
- 22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths On Global Warming | Climatism
- Twelve Reasons Why The Paris Climate Talks Are A Total Waste | Climatism
MORE on the shock, global warming “pause” paper from warmists Santer, Mann et al !
via PA Pundits…
UPDATE via Climatism:
MAKE NO MISTAKE. This paper is massive. It basically reaffirms what climate sceptics (“Deniers”) have been stating for years – that despite record CO2 emissions over the past 20 years, there has been NO statistically significant global warming over this period.
There is a catastrophic problem with the UN’s billion dollar CMIP5 climate models that essentially drive the $trillion global warming industry. They are grossly overheated, leading to the panic, hysteria and fake news seen daily on the topic.
Something other than CO2 must be driving the climate. And The Godfather’s of global warming doom and gloom – Ben Santer and Mikey (hockey stick) Mann et al have released this *scientific* paper supporting the sceptical notion of a lower CO2 sensitivity than perceived by the “97%”.
It is being touted in the sceptic community as “Black Monday” owing to the release day.
Surely, this paper spells the beginning of the end for the greatest and most costly scientific fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind.
By Andrew Bolt ~
Even leading alarmist Ben Santer, lead author of a paper in Nature Geoscience, now admits the world isn’t warming as predicted by global warming models. Even Michael Mann, who produced the infamous hockey stick, has put his name to this paper.
From the abstract:
In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.
The problem is the models on which the global warming scare is based were simply wrong:
We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
James Delingpole describes Santer’s colorful history in the climate wars since he was outed in the Climategate scandal.
John Christy, who collects satellite temperature data…
View original post 93 more words
“[Since] the late 1970s. The vast majority of the globe’s vegetated area is greening, with 25-50% of that area showing a statistically significant change, while only 4% of the vegetated area is significantly browning…”
“Carbon Pollution” (aka Carbon Dioxide) not so “dirty” after all!
Guest essay by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels
It’s hard to say how many punny posts we came up with using those words when Carol Browner was Bill Clinton’s EPA Administrator, but here we use it in the context of a recent Science paper by J-F. Busteri and 30 named coauthors assisted by 239 volunteers. It found, looking at global drylands (about 40% of land areas fall into this category), that we had undercounted global forest cover by a whopping “at least 9%”.
239 people were required to examine over 210,000 0.5 hectare (1.2 acre) sample plots in GoogleEarth, and classify the cover as open or forested. Thing of being condemned to looking at that many satellite views of real estate. Anyway, Here’s the resultant cool map:
This has been the subject of a jillion recent stories, blog posts, tweets and whatever concerning Bastin et al. So let’s add a bit…
View original post 299 more words
GWPF Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse takes a close look at some recent developments in the long-running global temperature ‘pause’ controversy.
A new paper has been published in the Analysis section of Nature called Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus.’ It confirms that the ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’ is real. It is also rather revealing.
It attempts to explain the ‘Pause’ by looking into what is known about climate variability. They say that four years after the release of the IPCC AR5 report, which contained much about the ‘hiatus’ it is time to see what can be learned.
One could be a little sarcastic in saying why would Nature devote seven of its desirable pages to an event that some vehemently say never existed and maintain its existence has been disproved long ago.
Now, however, as the El Nino spike of the past few years levels off, analysing the…
View original post 324 more words
“The gap between observations and models persists. The observed trend deviated by as much as −0.17 °C per decade from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5; ref. 19) ensemble-mean projection1—a gap two to four times the observed trend.
The hiatus therefore continues to challenge climate science.”
– Nature Climate Change (PEER-REVIEWED STUDY)
“This paper published today in Nature Climate Change by Hedemann et al. not only confirms the existence of “the pause” in global temperature, but suggests a cause, saying “…the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance“.
That’s an important sentence, because it demonstrates that despite many claims to the contrary, CO2 induced forcing of the planetary temperature is not the control knob, and natural variability remains in force.”
The “pause/hiatus” in Global Warming is now nearing 20 YEARS. This despite *record* man-made CO2 emitted over the same period.
Don’t be at all surprised if – CNN, BBC, ABC, CNBC, LATimes, NYTimes, WaPo, The Age, SMH and the rest of the “climate change” obsessed sycophant media don’t report this massively inconvenient climate news. – Too many reputations, jobs, govt grants and funding are now at stake.
The “uncertainty monster” strikes again
We’ve been highly critical for some time of the paper in summer 2015 by Karl et al. that claimed “the pause” or hiatus went away once “properly adjusted” ocean surface temperature data was applied to the global surface temperature dataset. Virtually everyone in the climate skeptic community considers Karl et al. little more than a sleight of hand.
No matter, this paper published today in Nature Climate Change by Hedemann et al. not only confirms the existence of “the pause” in global temperature, but suggests a cause, saying “…the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance“.
That’s an important sentence, because it demonstrates that despite many claims to the contrary, CO2 induced forcing of the planetary temperature is not the control knob, and natural variability remains in force.
Also of note, see the offset as designated…
View original post 1,026 more words
UPDATE on “The end of coal, fossil fuels and the rise of unreliables – wind/solar.”
By Paul Homewood
China’s natural gas production surged to a record last month and coal output rebounded as economic growth accelerated power use in the world’s largest energy user.
View original post 350 more words
“One of the key predicted observations of anthropogenic CO2 climate theory is the existence of an equatorial tropospheric hotspot.
“But nobody has yet managed to unequivocally detect that predicted hotspot.”
IMO, one of the most important pieces of the “global warming” aka “climate change” aka “climate disruption” debate … the missing ‘Hot-Spot’.
Dr David Evans wrote an excellent piece on the missing “hot spot” back in 2008:
“No Smoking Hot Spot”
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein
German garden gnome. By Colibri1968 at English Wikipedia (Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons.) [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsGuest essay by Eric Worrall
One thing which struck me about the recent climate science hearing is how little attention was paid to Dr. John Christy’s demonstration of a flawed climate model prediction – the missing Tropospheric hotspot.
A flawed prediction does not automatically mean the models are totally wrong – but it is a strong indicator that something isn’t right.
Consider the primary observation. The world has warmed since the mid 1850s, and for the sake of argument lets assume that the world has warmed since the mid 1930s.
Given that warming, you could propose a number of different theories for the cause of that warming, for example;
1. Chaotic shifts in ocean currents or solar influences have influenced global temperature.
2. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused global temperature to rise
View original post 872 more words