These posts are intended to be read as a series. Part 1 explores some of the reasons for doubt regarding the notion of man made global warming. Part 2 considers the economic and political forces behind the prominent environmentalist group Extinction Rebellion, the famous activist Greta Thunberg, the mainstream media (MSM) and the intergovernmental bodies who promote global warming alarmism. Part 3 looks at the influences behind the globalist movement which has created the perception of the ‘climate emergency.’
The once respected Guardian newspaper recently announced an official house style change. It will no longer be using the term ‘climate change’ and will now be using phrases like ‘climate crisis’ and ‘global heating.’ This change in language has followed the emergence of the environmentalist group Extinction Rebellion and the Internet sensation Greta Thunberg who insist we must act urgently to reduce CO2 emissions if we are to avert global catastrophe. In keeping with this theme the online news outlet the Independent published a story based on a report by the Australian think tank the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration predicting huge sea level rises and the end of human civilisation by 2050. “Be afraid, be very afraid” appears to be the MSM mantra.
However, the Guardian’s change of language also extends to how they refer to those who challenge the alleged scientific consensus on man made, CO2 driven global warming (anthropogenic global warming – AGW.) Anyone who questions the AGW hypothesis is now to be referred to as a “climate science denier.” The Guardian are one among many MSM outlets uniformly espousing this rhetoric. This is all supposedly based upon the premise that the science of AGW is ‘settled’ and beyond all reasonable doubt.
Science is not settled by committee. It is based upon evidence and the analysis of empirical data; the scientific method interprets the results of experimentation, searching for consistency, no matter who carries out the experiment; science requires verifiable data analyses and documented observation, always striving for objectivity.
Doubt is the primary principle of empirical science. A hypothesis is formed, tentatively explaining an observation. Apparent global warming for example. The real scientific method dictates the hypothesis is tested to breaking point. It must be robustly challenged. If no experimental, analytical or observable evidence emerges to refute the hypothesis, only then, after thorough peer review, does it become a scientific theory. Even after it becomes an accepted theory the science is constantly reviewed. If new observations contradicts the theory then it returns to hypothesis status, because the evidence refutes it, while further scientific research is undertaken.
The evidence which contradicts the notion that CO2 ‘causes,’ or is even a significant contributor to global warming is extensive. It is important to recognise that climate is constantly changing. By looking back over millennia we can see that climate has fluctuated greatly.
The Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP) shows that, in the Northern hemisphere at least, there have been numerous periods throughout geological history when the climate has been significantly warmer than it is today. These changes have been seen throughout relatively recent human history. Over the last 11000 years global average temperature has varied by as much as 5C, rapidly warming and cooling. By comparing this with estimated C02 levels, researchers at the University of Oslo Department of Geo-sciences, led by Professor Ole Humlum, demonstrated that increased CO2 apparently had no causal relationship to global temperature at all.
The long range weather forecaster and climate scientist Piers Corbyn challenged the BBC, leading advocates of the AGW hypothesis, and the UK climate scientists at the University of East Anglia to cite just one peer reviewed paper which proves C02 is the driver of climate change. To date no one has cited any such paper.
Typically the response from AGW believers is that it isn’t a simple as that, as the AGW hypothesis relies upon numerous components, each contributing to the overarching hypothesis. However, the fact remains, that no scientist has published any paper, based upon empirical (measured) data, which firmly established any causal link between CO2 and global warming.
AGW is barely a sustainable hypothesis, let alone a cohesive theory. By insisting that AGW is ‘the truth,’ the Guardian’s new house style suggests a woeful understanding of empirical science has infested their editorial policy. It appears the Guardian are the science deniers.
However, there is reason to suspect, rather than scientific illiteracy, it is an economic and political agenda which underpins the Guardian’s absolute refusal to report science honestly. We’ll look at these influences in more detail in Parts 2 and 3.
Something wholly absent from all MSM climate emergency ‘alarmism’ is the economic and political context of the modern CO2 climate change alarmism. It is as if the powerful corporate, political and financial forces behind groups like Extinction Rebellion, the IPCC and prominent individuals like Greta Thunberg, are entirely irrelevant. MSM investigative journalism, asking questions of power, is virtually non-existent when it comes to the climate change ‘science.’ The question is why?
So let’s briefly look at some reasons to doubt the AGW hypothesis, explore the power structures driving climate change alarmism forward, and consider if there is more to the AGW theory than just science. We may as well, it is obvious no one in the MSM is going to do it.
Some Scientific Reasons To Doubt AGW
Very broadly the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis states that man made CO2 emissions add ‘an additional amount’ of CO2 to the ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere. Energy from the Sun first passes through the atmosphere and heats the Earth. The ‘greenhouse effect’ traps the returning solar energy as it is radiated from the Earth, primarily in the form of infrared radiation.
This ‘additional man made CO2’ absorbs and in turn emits infrared radiation back into the atmosphere in a process called ‘positive radiative forcing.’ This causes changes in the energy balance in the troposphere (the part of atmosphere we live in on Earth) measured in Watts per square meter (W/m2.) Positive radiative forcing means the ‘imbalance’ produces a heating effect in the troposphere and therefore additional planetary or ‘global warming.’
The AGW hypothesis claims that natural warming is exacerbated and amplified by the ‘additional CO2’ emitted by us. Natural climate change occurs no matter what, regardless of our activity. This natural climate cycle’s effect, over the last 400 years or so, has been warming. The Earth is currently in a relatively cool period having recently emerged from a mini ice age called the Maunder Minimum. This coincided with extremely low solar activity. As solar activity increased, the planet warmed but, according to the AGW hypothesis, we have significantly increased the rate of this warming and this, say the alarmists, is both unprecedented and dangerous.
It is the envisaged effects of AGW which leads to fears of impending doom. These include melting ice sheets, huge sea level rise, a devastating increase in extreme weather events, food scarcity, seismic population shifts and so on and on.
The first thing to note about the AGW hypothesis is that it assumes the greenhouse effect is a fact. There is solid scientific reason to doubt it. There is always doubt with good science.
In 1859 the Irish physicist John Tyndall was credited with first discovering the radiant heat capacity of atmospheric gases, despite the earlier work of Eunice Foote and others. This was soon followed in 1896 by the work of Swedish physicist and chemist Svante Arrnhenius (an ancestor of Greta Thunberg) who more accurately quantified the thermal properties of CO2 in the atmosphere. However, the greenhouse effect hypothesis was largely ignored by science throughout the 20th century.
The modern AGW hypothesis is largely based upon research of NASA scientist James Hansen who reinvigorated Arnnhenius’ theories and suggested that this CO2 radiative forcing was ‘causing’ additional global warming. His work coincided with a number of economic and geopolitical drivers which also support the AGW hypothesis. Something we’ll discuss in Part 2.
The problem is ‘the greenhouse effect,’ as it relates to the AGW, has a number of unresolved scientific questions hanging over it, most notably from physicists. These include an apparent, relative disregard of convection and conduction as a methods of atmospheric heat transfer; no acknowledgment of atmospheric volume expansion and contraction (pressure differential) as a heat mitigating factor; a seemingly false assumption that global radiative emissions are uniform; disagreement about the radiative baseline; extreme difficulty in even measuring average global surface temperature and no recognition that global air temperatures can also be explained through the normal thermodynamic properties (thermal gradient) of atmospheric gases, no greenhouse effect required.
According to Hansen and others, CO2 drives temperature. Therefore CO2 must rise first, causing temperatures to follow. However, there is significant evidence this is not the case. For example, the Journal Nature published a paper in 1999 which looked at the Ice core records for the Last 420,000 years in Antarctica. This showed that atmospheric CO2 levels lagged behind temperature change by approximately 800 years.
These are just a few of the scientific objections to ‘certainty,’ a wholly unscientific principle, regarding the greenhouse effect, supposedly underpinning of the AGW hypothesis. For example a recent study by two Ph.D scientists (Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller) found, what appeared to be, a direct correlations between planetary atmospheric pressure, solar radiance and surface temperature, with the Earth’s surface temperature fitting precisely to the observation. A number of other papers have supported such findings.
The IPCC have stated that current CO2 levels are ‘unprecedented’ in human history. They have used the Ice core records to demonstrate this. Yet again, there is doubt these claims are accurate. Historical CO2 levels need to be calculated using proxies, no one was measuring it until the last century. Ice core data is one method, another is the density of plant stemata, which vary inversely with atmospheric CO2. By looking at accurately dated fossil records, stemata density, and thereby CO2 levels, can be derived.
When the stomatal records were analysed by scientists from Stockholm University its showed a massive divergence from the Ice Core CO2 averages. In a 3000yr period, while ice core proxies showed CO2 levels between 235 – 255ppm the contemporaneous stomatal record indicated a range between 170-430ppm. Suggesting not only periods of higher total CO2 but also much greater variability. This brings the IPCC’s claim of unprecedented levels into question.
My point here is not to state one theory trumps another, but rather to highlight the fact that to claim the science of AGW is ‘settled’ is incorrect. For the Guardian and other MSM outlets to assert all who question AGW are “climate science deniers” is complete gobbledygook. Unless the Guardian is staffed by idiots (highly unlikely) it seems the change of language is designed to convince readers that the AGW hypothesis is a certainty, in the full knowledge that it isn’t.
You don’t need a Ph.D in physics to wonder if the AGW hypothesis is sound. Simple logic will do. AGW suggests that the additional CO2 emitted by mankind represents the ‘additional greenhouse gas’ driving climate change. It states that our industrial activity and energy consumption is the controlling factor for the Earth’s climate. That’s why we all need to reduce our carbon footprint, pay more tax and have our energy ‘usage’ monitored by the state.
To consider this we need to be clear about what a ‘greenhouse gas’ is. NASA, the IPCC and other organisations who support the AGW hypothesis, always report greenhouse gases as primarily composing of CO2 (carbon dioxide), CH4 (methane) and N2O (nitrous oxide). Remember, according to the theory, greenhouse gases are the ones which both absorb and emit infrared radiation, thereby warming the planet, with man made CO2 allegedly tipping the balance and controlling climate change.
However these organisations consistently ignore the most abundant greenhouse gas H20, the water vapour which eventually forms clouds. The AGW hypothesis states that rising global temperatures increase evaporation and therefore atmospheric H2O. AGW believers claim CO2 acts like a thermostat control nob, through positive radiative forcing. The problem is, like all greenhouse gases H20 also reflects the Sun’s energy, thereby cooling the planet through ‘negative radiative forcing.’ So more clouds could also reduce global temperatures. That’s why it is generally colder on a cloudy day. To say the science is unclear on this subject would be an understatement.
Even if you accept the greenhouse effect as an undisputed fact, these gases are undoubtedly formed through two processes. Naturally occurring and man made emissions. For example, as the oceans warm they expand and emit CO2 (Henry’s Law) and they absorb it when they cool and contract. If climate is ‘controlled’ by the greenhouse effect then a percentage of climate sensitivity will occur through such natural processes and a percentage through mankind’s activity. So what percentage of these greenhouse gases are contributed by us?
The amount of water vapour in atmosphere is constantly changing, but estimates fluctuate between 90% – 95% of greenhouse gases. Of the remaining 5% – 10% of greenhouse gases (dependent upon H2O variability) approximately 60% can be attributed to CO2. So CO2 represents between 3% – 6% of the all greenhouse gases. However, the percentage of CO2 contributed my mankind’s activity is approximately 4% of total atmospheric CO2.
This means that man’s contribution to the greenhouse gases which, according to the AGW hypothesis, is pushing us towards global catastrophe is between approximately 0.12% – 0.24% (depending upon water vapour variability.) If we are generous, that’s between 2 to 3 10ths of 1% of all greenhouse gases.
Even if the greenhouse effect is correct, should mankind’s total carbon footprint become zero, there would still be at least 99.6% of remaining greenhouse gases to contend with. The AGW hypothesis suggests that less than half of 1% of the entire greenhouse effect is destabilising the whole global climate. It isn’t quite that simple, because different gases absorb and emit infrared radiation at different rates. In addition, the CO2 cycle or ‘resonance time,’ the rate at which the planet recycles CO2, is much slower than the H2O cycle. Again, there is considerable scientific debate about CO2 resonance. However, it isn’t unreasonable to consider that 75% of AGW is attributable to H2O (vapour and clouds) and 20% to CO2 (with other greenhouse gases making up the difference.) Therefore, mankind’s CO2 emission count for an estimated 1% of total AGW.
Something never mentioned by the alarmists is the potential benefit of increased atmospheric CO2. It is plant food after all. Without it there would be no life on Earth as we know it. That’s why we commonly turn CO2 levels up as high a 1500 ppm in greenhouses. It also possibly explains why we are currently witnessing planetary greening, as deserts give way to plant growth. Referring to it as a pollutant seems preposterous. Without it we would all be dead and we breath it out while we aren’t.
As with all climate related science the picture is complex. Plants (along with algae and cyanobacteria) use photosynthesis to convert CO2 and H2O into the sugars required for energetic growth. Plants do this along slightly different ‘pathways’ and can be categorised accordingly as types C3, C4 and CAM. Their capacity for carbon capture, impact upon the water and CO2 cycle, prevalence within ecosystems and relative competitive advantages and disadvantages vary. These aspects contribute the overall assessment of their influence on both global biodiversity and climate change. What cannot be said, with any certainty at all, is that the greening of the planet is ‘bad.’
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to ask questions about the AGW hypothesis. Doing so certainly does not make you a ‘climate science denier.’
Further reason for doubt springs from the clear discrepancies between the predicted climate change ‘computer models,’ from which all alarmism springs, and the actual measured data. The IPCC, which isn’t a scientific organisation, uses computer models to supposedly inform its Summary for Policy Makers. This is then used by politicians to form the policies that impact upon us all.
Empirical science isn’t so concerned with prediction. It is based more upon observed measurements. Conclusions can then be drawn from analysis of this measured data. This is far more reliable than prediction because it is based upon what actually happened rather than what might, or could happen.
The IPCC formed in 1988 as fears, prompted by NASA scientist James Hansen’s research, rose. The IPCC started predicting what would happen as a result. Consequently we now have more than 30 years of actual, real measured data to compare with the projections.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gets its temperature data from government scientists and government bodies. Satellite temperature data sets come from the UAH (University of Alabama in Huntsville) and the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) analyses of satellite and balloon temperature data. Both UAH and RSS are U.S government funded. Other IPCC data sets come from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies – GISS (U.S government funded,) and the HadCRUT data sets from the UK government funded Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. Oceanic temperature data sets are fed to the IPCC by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) funded by the United Nations. Data for weather events largely comes from the U.S government funded National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) and the UK government funded Met Office.
This doesn’t necessarily mean the data is untrustworthy but political influence must be considered if you are rational.
The satellite temperatures indicators, which measure radiation levels not temperature (this is calculated from the data,) are considered to be more reliable than average surface temperature measurements, which have a greater susceptibility environmental variance. This indicates the difficulty in even calculating average global temperature as there is considerable divergence between the data sets.
Hansen predicted additional CO2 would cause runaway global warming, if nothing was done to reduce emissions. As we all know, since then, C02 has steadily increased to 412 parts per million (or 0.04%) of the atmosphere, with man’s CO2 emissions reaching a climate controlling 0.0016%. Yet the measured temperature data does not match either the IPCC’s or Hansens predictions. There is reason for scientific doubt about the predictions.
Furthermore, when we look at the prophecies of catastrophe, arising from the AGW hypothesis, in the light or real world data, this again provides reason for scepticism.
Some Reasons To Doubt the Impending AGW Apocalypse
Virtually none of the horrifying prediction made by the IPCC and other AGW proponents have materialised. In 2005 the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), founders of the IPCC along with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), claimed that massive sea level rises would create 50 million ‘climate refugees‘ by 2010. In 2003 the Pentagon released its terrifying document “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security.” In it they claimed, unless action to limit CO2 emissions was taken (and no meaningful action has been taken) the catastrophes we should have seen by now include California being flooded with inland seas, parts of the Netherlands becoming “unlivable,” and polar ice completely vanishing in the summer. None of which has come to pass.
In fact ice sheets on Greenland, in the Arctic and the Antarctic have been thickening for decades. The IPCC has warned repeatedly of the dangers threatened by the collapse of the Antarctic Peninsula, now scientist acknowledge these predictions were wrong. All of these provably false predictions were trumpeted by the MSM.
In 2000 David Viner, the senior research scientist for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the UK media, who dutifully reported it without hesitation, that snowfall would virtually disappear in the UK. Snowfall records across the northern hemisphere continue to show an increase, not a decline.
Yet, despite the fact that these kinds of alarmist claims have been proven to be precisely that, we still see people working themselves up into a frenzy as more and more spill forth. The latest has followed the IPCC’s most recent Summary For Policy Makers claiming we have just 12 years to save the planet unless we cut CO2 emissions. This has been picked up by the pressure groups like Extinction Rebellion, who amplify the message, though presumable it’s now only 11 years. Hence the Guardian’s, and others, insistence we all accept the ‘climate emergency.’
What these erroneous predictions and wildly inaccurate doomsday revelations all have in common is that they never err on the cooler, less dramatic side. This is understandable for the MSM. Saying “it probably won’t make much difference” sells nowhere near as much copy, or advertising space, as “the end is nigh” soothsaying. However, you would have thought the climate science, an extremely complex field, published by bodies like the IPCC or the CRU, would occasionally revise some predictions downwards. Yet they never do, they consistently assert a worsening overheating, melting, burning apocalypse.
Frankly, for science, this is weird. As new evidence is revealed it constantly adapts and shifts its position. While the direction of travel may generally be consistent, you would expect some variation in the opposite direction from these supposedly scientific bodies. It is not as if there isn’t any evidence to at least wonder if the current state of CO2 induced panic is warranted. Yet those organisation, portrayed as the ‘world’s leading climate experts’ never cease to ramp up the hysteria.
For example, between 1997 and 2015, while approximately 33% of all alleged man made positive radiative forcing has supposedly occurred, data from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) showed no net warming at all. From a scientific standpoint it is untenable to insist the world is doomed, because of CO2, while at the same time ignoring all the evidence that it isn’t. Yet that is precisely what the IPCC and various other government agencies, such as the Pentagon, do.
We are constantly told there is a ‘consensus’ about the AGW hypothesis. Why? We arc not continually reminded of the scientific consensus that the Earth orbits the sun; scientists don’t insist we believe waves have frequencies; there’s no lobby group of concerned scientists demanding we accept H2O is water or that electric current conducts. Yet, when it comes to the AGW hypothesis, we are encouraged to accept that the alleged consensus is evidence, which it isn’t.
This reveals the most unscientific of traits. An agenda.
Evidence of an Agenda
We are told that ‘scientists’ have proven we are entering the 6th mass extinction period as a result of mankind’s’ CO2 emissions. In truth, this claim is extremely dubious. It was the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) who released their ‘Summary for Policy Makers’ which announced the latest prediction that we’re all going to die. Groups like Extinction Rebellion and ‘thought leaders’ like Greta Thunberg, presumably spurred on by their terror, then embarked upon global panic campaigns to ram home the message. Ably assisted, as ever, by the mainstream media.
The IPBES produced their terrifying statistics by showing all species loss as a cumulative percentage increase over 19th and 20th century. They took the raw data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) record of species loss, called the Red List. By carefully reinterpreting this data, apparently to suit an alarmist agenda, the IPBES produced its horrific nonsense.
What the actual data shows is that forced extinction peaked at the end of the 19th century and has been steadily in decline ever since. It is also notable that mankind’s CO2 ‘emissions’ really took off in the post WWII industrial boom. So, if CO2 has any relationship to species extinction (which doesn’t appear to be the case) it is an inverse one. The precise opposite of the scary claims.
In 2009 the CRU were embroiled in the Climategate Scandal. Leaked emails, probably from a disgruntled insider, showed systematic data manipulation (scientific fraud) at the heart of the CRU. The emails revealed collusion between supposed scientists to hide, alter, misinterpret and otherwise manipulate raw data to ‘prove’ their seemingly politically motivated AGW hypothesis. This was absolutely contrary to the scientific method and the global scientific community, though seldom reported by the MSM, were appalled.
The emails showed that wealthy political Non Governmental Organisations (NGO’s,) such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) were influencing the allegedly hard science of the CRU. Asking them to ‘beef up’ certain data and overlook other, less convenient, evidence. That the CRU apparently complied, shows they were not acting as scientists but rather political spin doctors.
The whole basis of the AGW hypothesis alarmism is that the current warming period is unprecedented. This, according the alarmists, must be because man made CO2 is adding an additional 0.4% load to existing greenhouse gases. So any evidence that the warming is not ‘unprecedented’ would require a reassessment of the whole AGW concept. Consequently the CRU colluded with other ‘leading climate scientists’ around the world to hide the inconvenient truth.
While the emails reveal all manner of obfuscation and agenda setting, instead of empirical science, it is the acknowledgments of uncertainty and deliberate side-lining of counter indicative data which stands out. The CRU scientists recognised that the current warming period may not be ‘unprecedented.’ The same can be seen in the so called medieval warm period, which occurred around 1000 – 1400 CE, before any CO2 producing industrialisation. Similarly the data showed a period of extended global cooling in the late 20th century. This didn’t ‘fit’ with the AGW hypothesis.
Ironically, the actual problem was the uncertainty about the proxy data used (such as tree rings) prior to modern thermometer readings. This uncertainty didn’t necessarily ‘disprove’ the AGW hypothesis but rather questioned the value of some historical data, thereby making it difficult to ‘prove’ unprecedented warming. It was obvious from the communications that there was no consensus about the ‘dangers’ of AGW but rather broad agreement that the AGW hypothesis should be promoted, no matter what.
One of the IPCC posters for AGW is the Hockey Stick graph produced by climatologist Michael E. Mann. The CRU emails revealed that this had been produced by altering the way the average “smooth” was displayed, by truncating the timeline of some data, to hide divergence and give the impression of more rapid, significant, recent warming. Referenced as ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’ in the emails, the real shocker was that CRU scientists were impressed with the subterfuge and so adopted it themselves. Producing nothing even approaching science, but rather propaganda.
That the scientists at the CRU were caught out fiddling the science was bad enough, but that many of the same scientists have continued to provide the HadCRUT data which supposedly informs the IPCC climate models is a firm basis for both lay and scientific scepticism. However, it is far from the only reason to doubt the accuracy of climate alarmism. Other instances of scientific fraud, error and deception in climate research are plentiful. Similarly this has allowed MSM to report abject nonsense as ‘evidence’ of mankind’s collective suicide mission.
For example, there is no doubt at all that the warmest decade of the 20th century in the U.S was the 1930’s. This presents a problem if you want to demonstrate a recent warming trend, especially if you claim this was caused by the rapid growth of CO2 emissions in the post WWII period. So the temperature data sets provided to the IPCC go through some ‘adjustments’ prior to submission. These consistently reduce historical temperature records and increase more recent data.
This upwards inflation of modern temperature records, and simultaneous reduction in historical temperature averages, was highlighted in 2017 by a team of independent Ph.D scientists who reviewed the statistical data sets. They highlighted a reasonable concern that the global average surface temperature (GAST) data is wholly untrustworthy. They concluded:
“ The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.”
Alarmism Straying Into the Absurd
Such scientific doubt is rarely reported by the MSM. However, they do report a never ending stream of frankly ridiculous ‘fake news’ stories which always add to the AGW hysteria. A big favourite is the rapidly approaching extinction of the Polar Bear. This reached a crescendo last year when National Geographic released a real tear jerker of a video showing a starving Polar Bear with the caption ‘This is What Climate Change Looks Like.’
If you forget the fact that the polar bears survived the total disappearance of summer sea ice in the recent (Holocene) geological past, or that the filmmakers actually said “this is what starvation looks like;” even if you ignore the fact that sea ice loss doesn’t really threaten an animal that can swim for hundreds of miles without stopping, then surely the fact that the Polar Bear populations is thriving should prompt pause for thought? It did for National Geographic who printed a retraction but probably not for the estimated 2.5 billion people who have seen the video, thanks to the MSM’s avid promotion. It is the imagery and symbolism that will stick in their minds, something all good propaganda plays upon.
There is even doubt that there has been any ‘additional warming’ in the Arctic. Once again we encounter the massaging of historical records and fiddling of measured data to produce a false impression. In keeping with the warming in the U.S in the 1930’s the data shows temperatures rose sharply in the Arctic during the same period. Arctic monitoring stations have measured an annual cooling trend ever since. So it appears GISS have upwardly adjusted temperature data from 19 of the 23 monitoring station and forgotten to mention the pre-war warming period.
A favoured trick of the MSM is to deliberately confuse weather with climate change. No matter what the weather event the MSM always claim a link to climate change. Often with the assistance of government agencies who seem equally keen to sound the alarm. The BBC have just reported widespread flooding in Wainfleet in Lincolnshire. They eagerly cited claims from the UK government’s Environment Agency that this is ‘unprecedented.’ Except it isn’t. A heavier deluge fell on the area in 1960. Similar dross has sprouted from the reporting of the recent European heatwave. The BBC reported that France had recorded it’s highest ever temperature of 45.9C. This wasn’t true either. In 1930 temperatures as high as 122F (50C) were recorded in Paris. Again, it is as if the past never happened. Well, a warmer past anyway.
The idea that ‘extreme weather events’ are getting worse is a central tenet of AGW alarm. This is a major consideration for the engineers who build bridges, sewers, skyscrapers and so on. They keep a close eye on climate trends and predictions in an attempt to future proof their infrastructure projects. In 2016 a team of engineers from Cambridge University analysed the weather records of the last century. They stated:
“It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change.”
They aren’t alone. Even the IPCC admit that they only have low confidence that extreme weather events are linked to climate change. So where do MSM stories such as the Guardian’s handy visual guide “Deadly Weather: The Human Cost of 2018’s Climate Disaster” come from? This appears to allow the Guardian, among others, to claim that ‘extreme cold’ is also a sign of global warming. When snow and ice is attributed to ‘global heating’ we really are entering the realms of the absurd.
If we consider (see Part 2) that there may be an economic and political agenda at play here, in light of the divergence between climate model predictions and real empirical data, falling temperatures also needs to be squeezed into the narrative. Despite the obvious lunacy, ‘extreme weather,’ as part of the ‘climate disaster,’ provides the necessary wriggle room. There is mounting evidence that we are entering a Grand Solar Minimum prompting significant concerns of rapid cooling, which is always more hazardous for life than warming. Regardless of the fact that the IPCC have claimed the Sun, the source of all energy on Earth, has little to do with climate change, perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that many scientists disagree.
The MSM also have a habit of reporting climate alarm which, when proven to be utter rubbish, they seldom retract or, if they do, that correction is relegated to the minor pages, months later. Recently The Independent publicised a report, published in the respected scientific journal Nature, that claimed thermal uptake in the oceans had been underestimated by 60%. According to the Independent this had massive implications for the climate models. Unfortunately the paper was mathematically incoherent babble based upon fundamentally flawed calculations.
However, in the world of climate change alarmism, such trifles don’t matter. Knowing this paper to be simply ‘wrong’ the Independent have, to date, printed no retraction at all. Even ‘Nature’ have left the paper on their site and, having partially acknowledged the huge calculation error, deceptively state:
“We are working with the authors to establish the quantitative impact of the errors on the published results, at which point in time we will provide a further update.”
Eight months later they haven’t managed to work this out. Something which should concern anybody who values ‘Nature’ as a respected reviewer of empirical science.
Another MSM ploy is to highlight celebrity endorsements to convince the public to be terrified. Who needs to understand the science when world leading climate experts like Radiohead say they’re worried?
This use, or is it abuse, of celebrities reached its pessimum when much loved natural history journalist David Attenborough was convinced to narrate a ridiculous film alleging walruses were falling to their deaths because of climate change. Attenborough stated that climate change had forced the walruses to ‘haul out’ en masse in “desperation” due to sea ice loss, caused by AGW. With the director Sophie Lanfear stating “This is the sad reality of climate change.”
This was monumental tripe. Mass ‘haul outs’ of walruses have long been known as a strong indicator of population health. Far from signs of walrus demise, the increasing size of ‘haul outs’ indicate an abundance of food and a growing population. Nor does this stunning natural event seemingly have anything to do with receding sea ice. Huge ‘haul outs’ have been recorded as far back as the 1930’s, when the extent of the sea ice was greater.
However, an abundance of walruses also means an abundance of food for the abundant polar bears. While no one really knows why walruses climb cliffs, perhaps they follow scent trails, evading feasting predators also seems a reasonable guess.
These are just a few of the copious examples of scientific fraud and baseless fear mongering which characterise climate change alarmism. Despite the allegations of the MSM and others, those who highlight these problems are neither ‘denying climate science’ nor suggesting climate change shouldn’t be a concern.
What they are saying is that the counter evidence, frequent incidents of scientific skulduggery, widespread manipulation and misreporting of data and repeated MSM fear mongering, based upon falsehoods, raise legitimate reasons for doubt. There is an apparent agenda unnecessarily heightening public alarm and over emphasising one hypothesis (AGW) at the expense of all the other scientific reasons for environmental caution.
In order to understand why that agenda exists, we need to look more closely at the money behind it, which we do in Part 2 . In Part 3 we consider the influences behind promotion of the AGW driven climate emergency.
Be the first to comment on "A Climate Emergency Fit for a Parasite Economy – Part 1"