Image: Paul Bongiorno, RN ABC Breakfast Political Commentator (ABC RN/Elliot Dunn)
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russell
A STARK lesson in climate facts and data Vs ABC groupthink eco-ideology via “denier” numero uno – Andrew Bolt of The Herald Sun.
MAKE your own mind up. Who really are the real “science deniers”, the sceptics or the “save the planet” virtue-signalling, eco-zealots? …
PAUL BONGIORNO, THE REAL DENIER
The real “deniers” are generally not the global warming sceptics but the extremists who denounce them. Take ABC commentator Paul Bongiorno, who today denied the science in attacking Tony Abbott’s speech in London overnight.
In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial.
ABC presenter Fran Kelly on ABC Radio Breakfast quoted this at Paul Bongiorno this morning. His response:
This just flies in the face of contemporary science.
Actually, it’s warmist Paul himself who flies in the face of science.
Cold weather is 20 times as deadly as hot weather... The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat.
A new study published in The Lancet shows 6.5% of deaths in this country are attributed to cold weather, compared with 0.5% from hot weather. Most deaths will be from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, as it’s the heart and lungs that struggle when we are outside our comfort zone.
The situation has become so dire that 77 per cent of low-income NSW households are going without heating in a bid to reduce their onerous power bills, new research from the NSW Council of Social Service (NCOSS) shows. And one in three low-income earners have been forced to stop using hot water for bathing to pay for energy bills.
Then there’s the increased crops we’re getting as the world (mildly) warms.
The latest indications for the current season point to record cereal production in 2017 at the world level with total inventories hitting a new peak.
It’s the invincible ignorance of Bongiorno that staggers me. Confronted with facts that challenge his ideology he instinctively denies them, and, indeed, went on to insult Abbott as someone he falsely claimed had said he couldn’t be believed unless he’d written it down (which, incidentally, Abbott had actually done in this case).
And what of Fran Kelly? She fancies herself as someone who is pretty well informed on global warming, which she, too, spruiks.
But to Bongiorno’s false claims she offered not a word of demurral.
IT’S time for so-called climate scientists to either cough up one single, solitary shred of genuine scientific evidence that proves that the climate is being changed by mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions, or ‘fess up and admit that the whole thing is a gigantic hoax.
That’s the bottom line.
Asked at the beginning of this year for one of those “predictions for 2017”, I claimed that this would be the year the Australian public wakes up and realises they are being hoodwinked by the whole climate change/renewables scam.
I told Paul Murray’s lively late night TV show on Sky News that 2017 would be the year the climate con comes to an end. So how is my prediction…
“In such cases, attributing today’s extreme weather to “climate change” regardless of what happens (maybe droughts, maybe floods) is what the philosopher Karl Popper called “pseudoscience.” If some theory explains everything, it can’t be tested and it is therefore not science.”
EXPLAINS all of the alarmist, goal-post shifting ‘science’ that is pontificated by the climate change cult to prove their flimsy eco-religion.
Such stories are typically infused with smug arrogance. Their authors claim to be wise and well-informed, and anyone who dares to question their “settled science” must need to have their eyes pried open and their mouths shut.
There will doubtless be similar “retroactive forecasting” tales about Irma, so recent story-telling about Harvey may provide a precautionary warning for the unwary.
I am an economist, not a climatologist.* But blaming Harvey on climate change apparently demands much lower standards of logic and evidence than economists would dare describe as serious arguments.
Nearly everything about “Climate Change”, “Global Warming”, “Climate Disruption” or whatever suits the narrative of the day is based on propaganda, fear and alarmism, having nothing to do with actual “science”, hard data or observed reality…
With the UN’s annual climate gabfest, held this time in exotic Marrakech, now done and dusted, it is worth drilling down on the exact “science” that these luxurious and opulent meetings are supposedly based upon…
Assessing the current state of the climate should be a necessary precursor to all ‘climate-crisis’ meetings in order to justify not only the hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 carbon emissions emitted whilst jetting in the thousands of climate elites from every corner of the globe. But also to account for the millions upon millions of (your) taxpayer dollars spent in order to hold each lavish event.
Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming.
The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.
Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising.
Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.
So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.
A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’
2016 Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade’
Deaths due to extreme weather have declined dramatically.
Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.
This is problematic as these same unverifiable climate models form the basis of the literal trillions of dollars of taxpayer money that directly funds radical climate policy and the schemes and scams that go with it like misguided and “unreliable” energy solutions – wind and solar.
Decide for yourself if there is a so called “Climate Crisis” and just how are the estimated trillions of dollars, earmarked to de-carbonise the globe, supposed to change the weather or adjust the temperature of the planet, and by how much exactly? No one really knows.
If you feel CFACT’s list of peer-reviewed and scientific climate realities are “cherry-picked”, ask yourself why no UN climate ‘expert’ or anyone at a climate conference will ever dare discuss these points. Of course they won’t and can’t because each point fundamentally wrecks their climate narrative and political agenda.
Note to Marc and other dissenters of the preferred wisdom of climate theology: If you want an invite to a UN climate event, and wish to remain for the entire two weeks enjoying the inner-sanctum of climate groupthink, pampering and chatter, you best pack the preferred memes of the climate crisis industry and use them frequently – “the science is settled” and “97% of all scientists agree”. Both equally deceptive and thoroughly debunked climate memes aimed to stifle debate, intimidate and isolate.
“Science” is never settled, nor does science listen to or work through “consensus”.
What We Do Know About UN Climate Meetings and Radical Agenda
With such little evidence of a ‘climate crisis’, why does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change has the answer?
In Brussels February, 2015 she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”
In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.
The Marrakesh COP22 climate conference has ended – and green groups are just waking up that without US financial support, nobody has committed any money to anything.
“I’m a little worried by the lack of financial support to help poor countries adapt. This conference has been taking place in Africa, it was generally agreed that there should be more money, but in concrete terms unfortunately these decisions failed to materialise,” said Lutz Weischer, team leader on international climate policy at Germanwatch.
It is genuinely possible most of the members of groups like Greenpeace and Germanwatch really didn’t know where all the money was coming from. Sounds crazy, but think about it – all greens had to do in the past is make a lot of noise, and bundles of cash turned up. They never had any reason to question where the cash was coming from.
I suspect climate activists are only now waking to the horrible possibility that after years of partying on the US taxpayer’s dime, they really don’t have that many friends anymore.
The two week conference, catering for 25,903 participants was declared the “conference of action”. Which is why the Paris rule has been delayed to 2018!
What a waste of time and…’CO2 carbon emissions’.
As with all climate conferences, kicking the can down the road was to be expected and who’s complaining with another guaranteed two years of champagne, foie gras and chatter at exotic locations, on the taxpayer dime…
We were extremely fortunate that Matthew—category 5 through much of the Caribbean—weakened to category 2 before landfall in South Carolina. It could have been much worse.
In 1893 a much stronger hurricane followed nearly the same track. When its eye reached the Georgia and South Carolina coasts, a 15–20 ft. storm surge inundated the coastal islands. Though population was a small fraction of today’s, between 2,000 and 3,000 died, making that the second deadliest hurricane in U.S. history. The same year another major hurricane killed 2,000 in Louisiana.
All together five hurricanes hit the U.S. in 1893, something that’s happened…
A paper recently published attempts to measure the relationship between ice accumulation and temperature in Antarctica for the last 31000 years.
The study is based in West Antarctica. I won’t go into the details, which were covered by WUWT here. But what was interesting were the temperature graphs included, based on ice cores.
We can see that for most of the time since the end of the ice age temperatures have been much higher than now. We can also clearly see the sharp drop coinciding with the LIA, and that temperatures were similar to now in the MWP.
We are continually told that humans are pushing the earth’s climate into unknown territory, but once again we see this is not true. As far as the Antarctic is concerned, all the evidence points to the 20thC rise in temperatures being no more than a natural recovery…
WITHOUT access to fossil fuels, every tree on the planet would have been cut down by now to provide for peoples heating, cooking and industry.
THE greatest threat to the environment is not affluence, it’s poverty.
BORDER between Haiti and Dominican Republic, a pristine example…
• ONE uses Fossil Fuels 🇩🇴
• THE other, signed up to the UN Paris Accord 🇭🇹
BORDER between Haiti and the Dominican Republic: Guess which country contains eco-criminals that can afford to use fossil fuels, and which country contains nature-lovers who are dependent on natural renewable organic biomass for energy?
HAITI is almost 99% deforested, as they rely almost entirely on natural ‘biomass’ (wood) for domestic and industrial fuels.
ON the other side, the forests of the fossil fuel burning, eco-terrorists – the Dominican Republic – remain lush and green…
AFTER nearly a €TRILLION Euros of taxpayer’s hard-earned money spent on sunshine and breezes, Germany’s Energiewende program has been exposed as a catastrophic failure, with carbon dioxide emissions higher now than in 2009, the year before the mad rush into subsidised ‘green’ energy began!
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenbergof the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
Dr Roy Spencer, former senior scientist for Climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, and current principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, reports that 2015 will not be “The Hottest Year Ever” despite a strong El Niño …. and even stronger hot-air from the climate alarm industry.
Way back in June, John Christy and I called 2015 as being the warmest year on record…in the surface thermometer data. Given the strong El Nino in progress, on top of the official thermometer data warming trend, this seemed pretty obvious.
Of course, everyone has their opinions regarding how good the thermometer temperature trends are, with periodic adjustments that almost always make the present warmer or the past colder.
But I’m not going there today…
Instead, I’m going to talk about our only truly global dataset: the satellite data. With the November 2015 data now in, it’s pretty clear that in our UAH analysis 2015 will only be the 3rd warmest year since the satellite record began in 1979. Based upon my calculations, this will be true no matter what happens in December (barring Armageddon).
Here are the yearly rankings, for which I assumed the December 2015 anomaly will be +0.40 C (click for full-size):
The years are displayed with the warmest on the left, and the coldest on the right. The color coding and arrows have to do with El Nino years…
With the ever increasing divergence of surface temperatures (NASA GISS) from satellite ones (UAH/RSS), and the subsequent divergence of overheated climate models (IPCC CMIP5) to observed reality, it is worth some background on the atmospheric temperature measurement systems used to measure the temperature of the lower troposphere – the exact place where global warming theory is meant to occur and be measured :
Roy Spencer :
…if for no other reason than this: thermometers cannot measure global averages — only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – hell, every cubic inch — of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby.
The two main research groups tracking global lower-tropospheric temperatures (our UAH group, and the Remote Sensing Systems [RSS] group) show 2014 lagging significantly behind 2010 and especially 1998:
With only 3 months left in the year, there is no realistic way for 2014 to set a record in the satellite data. Granted, the satellites are less good at sampling right near the poles, but compared to the very sparse data from the thermometer network we are in fat city coverage-wise with the satellite data. In my opinion, though, a bigger problem than the spotty sampling of the thermometer data is the endless adjustment game applied to the thermometer data. The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data. Furthermore, land-based thermometers are placed where people live, and people build stuff, often replacing cooling vegetation with manmade structures that cause an artificial warming (urban heat island, UHI) effect right around the thermometer. The data adjustment processes in place cannot reliably remove the UHI effect because it can’t be distinguished from real global warming. Satellite microwave radiometers, however, are equipped with laboratory-calibrated platinum resistance thermometers, which have demonstrated stability to thousandths of a degree over many years, and which are used to continuously calibrate the satellite instruments once every 8 seconds. The satellite measurements still have residual calibration effects that must be adjusted for, but these are usually on the order of hundredths of a degree, rather than tenths or whole degrees in the case of ground-based thermometers. And, it is of continuing amusement to us that the global warming skeptic community now tracks the RSS satellite product rather than our UAH dataset. RSS was originally supposed to provide a quality check on our product (a worthy and necessary goal) and was heralded by the global warming alarmist community. But since RSS shows a slight cooling trend since the 1998 super El Nino, and the UAH dataset doesn’t, it is more referenced by the skeptic community now. Too funny. In the meantime, the alarmists will continue to use the outdated, spotty, and heavily-massaged thermometer data to support their case. For a group that trumpets the high-tech climate modeling effort used to guide energy policy — models which have failed to forecast (or even hindcast!) the lack of warming in recent years — they sure do cling bitterly to whatever will support their case. As British economist Ronald Coase once said, “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.” So, why are the surface thermometer data used to the exclusion of our best technology — satellites — when tracking global temperatures? Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet. Except, as the public can tell, the changes in global temperature aren’t even on their radar screen (sorry for the metaphor).
Between 1979 and 2001, the RSS satellite data increased at virtually the same rate as GISS. Since then, there has been a massive divergence, with GISS claiming that the pace of increase has barely reduced from the earlier period.
In contrast RSS (and also UAH) confirm that, if anything, temperatures have been dropping.