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
When the journal “Science” prints a study doubting CO2 sensitivity, or basically, the effect that man-made CO2 has on the temperature of the atmosphere, you can be 100% sure that the “science” of climate change is most definitely not “settled”!
By David Kreutzer, Ph.D. ~
Last summer, the editor of Science wrote a commentary on climate change where she said “The time for debate has ended.”
After appealing to policies based on economic knowledge she doesn’t have, she finished with speculation as to which ring of Dante’s Inferno would God designate for climate skeptics.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with former Vice President Al Gore at the Paris Climate Conference. (Photo: State Department/Sipa USA/Newscom)
All in all, it was an awesomely unscientific tour de farce and totally depressing in that it came from one of the world’s two most prestigious science journals.
Of course the time for debate hasn’t ended—especially for the meaningful debate concerning how much impact carbon dioxide has on global warming.
The relationship under debate is how much warming will the world see from a doubling of carbon dioxide—which is called the equilibrium climate sensitivity.
View original post 755 more words