Activists hope that fake news about droughts will win

Reblogged from Fabius Maximus website

Activists hope that fake news about droughts will win

Climate change

Summary: Activists hope that daily apocalyptic news stories about climate change will mold public opinion, no matter how much they exaggerate the science. For a stunning example, look at the news and facts about droughts.

Climate change choices - dreamstime_50990297
ID 50990297 © Kiosea39 | Dreamstime.

The propaganda barrage by climate activists has few precedents in modern US history, increasing in intensity and the magnitude of its exaggerations. Any extreme weather, no matter how typical in history, becomes evidence of human influences: heat waves, cold, floods, snow, and – as described in this post – droughts. Activists hope that their flow of alarmist “news” will shape public opinion, just as a riven can carve through mountains.

About the California drought, forever until it ended

Thanks El Nino, But California’s drought is probably forever” by Rick Stockton at Wired, May 2016.

California Braces for Unending Drought” by Ian Lovett at the NYT, May 2016.

Editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle: “Drought is the new normal“, December 2017.

The Pacific Institute on the California drought: “Responding to the drought is responding to a ‘new normal’ water future with climate change” (2016).

See this example from September 2016 showing how sober research becomes apocalyptic warnings.

The Texas drought, a new normal until it wasn’t

Texas’ Permanent Drought” by Forrest Wilder at the Texas Observer, July 2011.

Texas Climate News sought out the state’s finest climatologists, oceanographers and public-policy experts. If nothing else, their responses make clear that the Lone Star State is headed for a new normal.”  {Dallas Observer, 14 October 2013.}

Fear in a Handful Of Dust” by Ted Genoways, The New Republic: “Climate change is making the Texas panhandle, birthplace of the state’s iconic Longhorn, too hot and dry to raise beef. …environmental activists and reporters began to ask whether “drought” – a temporary weather pattern – was really the right term for what was happening in the state, or whether “desertification” was more appropriate. … ‘If climate change is the real deal then the human race as we know it is over’.”

Drought is ‘the new normal’” by Lacey Jarrell at the Herald and News, September 2015.

Texas’ Record Floods Are the New Normal” by TakePart, September 2015.

Back to reality: good news about droughts

“We don’t even plan for the past.”
— About our unpreparedness for the inevitable repeat of past weather, by Steven Mosher of Berkeley Earth at Climate Etc.

Neither of those droughts was unusual for their regional climates. Scientists said so at the time. (See the quotes in the posts listed below.) Such short-term events tell us little or nothing about climate trends. But clickbait-loving leftist journalists misreported the science.

Now the weather has swung to the other extreme, but there are few stories about this good news: the percent of the continental US not in drought is at a record low (i.e., going back to January 2000), with a slight trend to less droughts (h/t to Professor Roger Pielke Jr.). For more information, see the US Drought Monitor.

What do we know about the trend in droughts?

From the Summary for Policymakers of the Working Group I of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report.

  • “Increases in intensity and/or duration of drought: low confidence on a global scale’
  • “Assessment that changes occurred (typically since 1950 unless otherwise indicated): low confidence.
  • “Assessment of a human contribution to observed changes: low confidence.
  • “Likelihood of further changes in the early 21st century: low confidence.”

You will seldom see this mentioned in articles about climate change, especially since Leftists abandoned the IPCC as “too conservative” (examples here and here). That is why they are losing. We cannot successfully cope with climate change – natural and anthropogenic – without a relentless focus on the science.

Advertisements

“Shrinking” Lake Chad Is Actually Growing!

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

We are all familiar with claims that Lake Chad is shrinking, in part because of climate change.

Such claims about climate claims were always highly suspect, given that the Sahel drought of the 1970s and 80s, which drastically affected the lake levels, occurred during a period of global cooling, as I showed here.

New evidence has now emerged though which shows that Lake Chad is not even shrinking anymore, and has actually grown since the 1990s:

image

Climate change is aggravating conflict around Lake Chad, but not in the way experts once thought, according to new research.

Berlin-based think tank adelphi debunked the widely held idea that the lake is currently shrinking. While severe droughts in the 1970s and 80s shrunk the lake from a high-point of 25,000 sq km to 2,000 sq km in the 1990s, it has since grown to 14,000 sq km and…

View original post 481 more words

The Greenhouse Deception Explained

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

A nice and concise video, well worth watching and circulating:

View original post

Australian Daily Electrical Power Generation Data – Friday 17th May 2019

PA Pundits - International

By Anton Lang ~

This Post details the daily power consumption data for the AEMO coverage area in Australia. For the background information, refer to the Introductory Post at this link.

Each image is shown here at a smaller size to fit on the page alongside the data for that day. If you click on each image, it will open on a new page and at a larger size so you can better see the detail.

Note also the scale change for all of the images, and that even though they look similar in size of generation, that scale (the total power shown on the left hand vertical axis) has been changed to show the graph at a larger size to better fit the image for that graph.

Friday 17th May 2019

Total Power Generation All Sources

Here, the total power generation from every power plant source is the…

View original post 3,499 more words

Scientific Hubris and Global Warming

Reblogged from Watts Up With That:

Scientific Hubris and Global Warming

Guest Post by Gregory Sloop

Notwithstanding portrayals in the movies as eccentrics who frantically warn humanity about genetically modified dinosaurs, aliens, and planet-killing asteroids, the popular image of a scientist is probably closer to the humble, bookish Professor, who used his intellect to save the castaways on practically every episode of Gilligan’s Island. The stereotypical scientist is seen as driven by a magnificent call, not some common, base motive. Unquestionably, science progresses unerringly to the truth.

This picture was challenged by the influential twentieth-century philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, who held that scientific ”truth” is determined not as much by facts as by the consensus of the scientific community. The influence of thought leaders, rewarding of grants, and scorn of dissenters are used to protect mainstream theory. Unfortunately, science only makes genuine progress when the mainstream theory is disproved, what Kuhn called a “paradigm shift.” Data which conflict with the mainstream paradigm are ignored instead of used to develop a better one. Like most people, scientists are ultimately motivated by financial security, career advancement, and the desire for admiration. Thus, nonscientific considerations impact scientific “truth.”

This corruption of a noble pursuit permits scientific hubris to prosper. It can only exist when scientists are less than dispassionate seekers of truth. Scientific hubris condones suppression of criticism, promotes unfounded speculation, and excuses rejection of conflicting data. Consequently, scientific hubris allows errors to persist indefinitely. However, science advances so slowly the public usually has no idea of how often it is wrong.

Reconstructing extinct organisms from fossils requires scientific hubris. The fewer the number of fossils available, the greater the hubris required for reconstruction. The original reconstruction of the peculiar organism Hallucigenia, which lived 505 million years ago, showed it upside down and backwards. This was easily corrected when more fossils were found and no harm was done.

In contrast, scientific hubris causes harm when bad science is used to influence behavior. The 17th century microscopist Nicholas Hartsoeker drew a complete human within the head of a sperm, speculating that this was what might be beneath the “skin” of a sperm. Belief in preformation, the notion that sperm and eggs contain complete humans, was common at the time. His drawing could easily have been used to demonstrate why every sperm is sacred and masturbation is a sin.

Scientific hubris has claimed many. many lives. In the mid 19th century, the medical establishment rejected Ignaz Semmelweis’ recommendation that physicians disinfect their hands prior to examining pregnant women despite his unequivocal demonstration that this practice slashed the death rate due to obstetric infections. Because of scientific hubris, “medicine has a dark history of opposing new ideas and those who proposed them.” It was only when the germ theory of disease was established two decades later that the body of evidence supporting Semmelweis’ work became impossible to ignore. The greatest harm caused by scientific hubris is that it slows progress towards the truth.

Record keeping of earth’s surface temperature began around 1880, so there is less than 150 years of quantitative data about climate, which evolves at a glacial pace. Common sense suggests that quantitative data covering multiple warming and cooling periods is necessary to give perspective about the evolution of climate. Only then will scientists be able to make an educated guess whether the 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit increase in earth’s temperature since 1930 is the beginning of sustained warming which will negatively impact civilization, or a transient blip.

The inconvenient truth is that science is in the data acquisition phase of climate study, which must be completed before there is any chance of predicting climate, if it is predictable [vide infra]. Hubris goads scientists into giving answers even when the data are insufficient.

To put our knowledge about climate in perspective, imagine an investor has the first two weeks of data on the performance of a new stock market. Will those data allow the investor to know where the stock market will be in twenty years? No, because the behavior of the many variables which determine the performance of a stock market is unpredictable. Currently, predicting climate is no different.

Scientists use data from proxies to estimate earth’s surface temperature when the real temperature is unknowable. In medicine, these substitutes are called “surrogate markers.” Because hospital laboratories are rigorously inspected and the reproducibility, accuracy, and precision of their data is verified, hospital laboratory practices provide a useful standard for evaluating the quality of any scientific data.

Surrogate markers must be validated by showing that they correlate with “gold standard” data before they are used clinically. Comparison of data from tree growth rings, a surrogate marker for earth’s surface temperature, with the actual temperature shows that correlation between the two is worsening for unknown reasons. Earth’s temperature is only one factor which determines tree growth. Because soil conditions, genetics, rainfall, competition for nutrients, disease, age, fire, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and consumption by herbivores and insects affect tree growth, the correlation between growth rings and earth’s temperature is imperfect.

Currently, growth rings cannot be regarded as a valid surrogate marker for the temperature of earth’s surface. The cause of the divergence problem must be identified and somehow remedied, and the remedy validated before growth rings are a credible surrogate marker or used to validate other surrogate markers.

Data from ice cores, boreholes, corals, and lake and ocean sediments are also used as surrogate markers. These are said to correlate with each other. Surrogate marker data are interpreted as showing a warm period between c.950 and c. 1250, which is sometimes called the “Medieval Climate Optimum,” and a cooler period called the “Little Ice Age” between the 16th and 19th centuries. The data from these surrogate markers have not been validated by comparison with a quantitative standard. Therefore, they give qualitative, not quantitative data. In medical terms, qualitative data are considered to be only “suggestive” of a diagnosis, not diagnostic. This level of diagnostic certainty is typically used to justify further diagnostic testing, not definitive therapy.

Anthropogenic global warming is often presented as fact. According to the philosopher Sir Karl Popper, a single conflicting observation is sufficient to disprove a theory. For example, the theory that all swans are white is disproved by one black swan. Therefore, the goal of science is to disprove, not prove a theory. Popper described how science should be practiced, while Kuhn described how science is actually practiced. Few theories satisfy Popper’s criterion. They are highly esteemed and above controversy. These include relativity, quantum mechanics, and plate tectonics. These theories come as close to settled science as is possible.

Data conflict about anthropogenic global warming. Using data from ice cores and lake sediments, Professor Gernot Patzelt argues that over the last 10,000 years, 65% of the time earth’s temperature was warmer than today. If his data are correct, human deforestation and carbon emissions are not required for global warming and intervention to forestall it may be futile.

The definitive test of anthropogenic global warming would be to study a duplicate earth without humans. Realistically, the only way is develop a successful computer model. However, modeling climate may be impossible because climate is a chaotic system. Small changes in the initial state of a chaotic system can cause very different outcomes, making them unpredictable. This is commonly called the “butterfly effect” because of the possibility that an action as fleeting as the beating of a butterfly’s wings can affect distant weather. This phenomenon also limits the predictability of weather.

Between 1880 and 1920, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were not associated with global warming. These variables did correlate between 1920 and 1940 and from around 1970 to today. These associations may appear to be compelling evidence for global warming, but associations cannot prove cause and effect. One example of a misleading association was published in a paper entitled “The prediction of lung cancer in Australia 1939–1981.” According to this paper, “Lung cancer is shown to be predicted from petrol consumption figures for a period of 42 years. The mean time for the disease to develop is discussed and the difference in the mortality rate for male and females is explained.” Obviously, gasoline use does not cause lung cancer.

The idea that an association is due to cause and effect is so attractive that these claims continue to be published. Recently, an implausible association between watching television and chronic inflammation was reported. In their book Follies and Fallacies in Medicine, Skrabanek and McCormick wrote, “As a result of failing to make this distinction [between association and cause], learning from experience may lead to nothing more than learning to make the same mistakes with increasing confidence.” Failure to learn from mistakes is another manifestation of scientific hubris. Those who are old enough to remember the late 1970’s may recall predictions of a global cooling crisis based on transient glacial growth and slight global cooling.

The current situation regarding climate change is similar to that confronting cavemen when facing winter and progressively shorter days. Every day there was less time to hunt and gather food and more cold, useless darkness. Shamans must have desperately called for ever harsher sacrifices to stop what otherwise seemed inevitable. Only when science enabled man to predict the return of longer days was sacrifice no longer necessary.

The mainstream position about anthropogenic global warming is established. The endorsement of the United Nations, U.S. governmental agencies, politicians, and the media buttresses this position. This nonscientific input has contributed to the perception that anthropogenic global warming is settled science. A critical evaluation of the available data about global warming, and anthropogenic global warming in particular, allow only a guess about the future climate. It is scientific hubris not to recognize that guess for what it is.

Grazing, desertification and climate change

“There is only one option, I’ll repeat to you, only one option left to climatologists and scientists, and that is to do the unthinkable, and to use livestock, bunched and moving, as a proxy for former herds and predators, and mimic nature. There is no other alternative left to mankind.”  –Allan Savory

Reblogged from Euan Mearns’ Energy Matters:

Posted on by Euan Mearns

Open thread…..

Yesterday I watched the GWPF cliff diving walrus porn video. Afterwards, Youtube took me to this video by Allan Savory. Noting that it had over 3 million views, my blood pressure rose in view of how environmental bullshit attracts so much attention. I started to watch and was then astonished by what Allan Savory had to say.

His core message runs totally counter to conventional wisdom. Savory of course has his detractors including George Monbiot – so this should provide enough encouragement for Energy Matters’ audience to watch and to listen.

TED provide a transcript of the video.

This is an open thread where I would welcome informed opinion on Allan Savory’s proposal.

The Sierra Club have a critical review: Allan Savory’s Holistic Management Theory Falls Short on Science.

The Guardian officially goes full climate alarmist language

Reblogged from Watts Up With That:

The Guardian’s editor has just issued this new guidance to all staff on language to use when writing about climate change and the environment…and it is full-on alarmism. No holding back punches now, because it’s a crisis, so let’s start writing like one! Josh helps us understand the real message.

HT/Willie Soon via Leo Hickman

Josh has interpreted this new policy:

CartoonsbyJosh

James Delingpole notes:


There is, in essence, no such thing is a ‘climate science denier’ because not even the most ardent sceptic denies the existence of ‘climate science’.

Even more problematic is that use of the word ‘denier’, which implicitly invokes the Holocaust – and in doing so, weirdly and irresponsibly puts ‘being sceptical about anthropogenic global warming’ in the same category as ‘denying that Hitler murdered six million Jews.’

In recent years, climate alarmists have tried to backtrack on the origins of the ‘denier’ slur by pretending that they never intended to invoke Holocaust denial.

But here is Guardian environment journalist George Monbiot writing in 2006:

Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.

Maybe Ms Viner should pay more attention to Thomas Sowell on this subject:

The next time someone talks about “climate change deniers,” ask them to name one — and tell you just where specifically you can find their words, declaring that climates do not change. You can bet the rent money that they cannot tell you.

Why all this talk about these mythical creatures called “climate change deniers”? Because there are some meteorologists and other scientists who refuse to join the stampede toward drastic economic changes to prevent what others say will be catastrophic levels of “global warming.”

There are scientists on both sides of that issue. Presumably the issue could be debated on the basis of evidence and analysis. But this has become a political crusade, and political issues tend to be settled by political means, of which demonizing the opposition with catchwords is one.

Sowell’s point is well made – and goes to the heart of what is wrong with the Guardian‘s new lexicon for its climate change reportage.

The Guardian is tacitly admitting that this is not an argument it is capable of winning on the science or indeed the facts. Therefore, it has decided to ramp up the rhetoric instead.

Tropical Pacific is major player in global ocean heat transport

Tallbloke's Talkshop

The Great Ocean Conveyor Belt – blue = deep cold and saltier water current, red = shallower and warmer current
[credit: NWS / NOAA]
Researchers put forward the idea that the role of the global ocean conveyor belt may be overrated in the grand scheme of ocean dynamics, and offer alternative ideas.

Far from the vast, fixed bodies of water oceanographers thought they were a century ago, oceans today are known to be interconnected, highly influential agents in Earth’s climate system, says Phys.org.

A major turning point in our understanding of ocean circulation came in the early 1980s, when research began to indicate that water flowed between remote regions, a concept later termed the “great ocean conveyor belt.”

The theory holds that warm, shallow water from the South Pacific flows to the Indian and Atlantic oceans, where, upon encountering frigid Arctic water, it cools and sinks to great depth.

View original post 279 more words

‘Gimme Gimme Shock Treatment’

PA Pundits - International

Joe Bastardi  ~   
 Apparently, the new strategy to fight climate change is shock therapy. It’s like today’s environmental crusaders are channeling the Ramones song “Gimme Gimme Shock Treatment.” Here are some illustrations.

Example #1:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said she was only kidding around when she made a big deal about the world ending in 12 years.

Interesting.

I wonder if she had any idea that many of her followers believed her. So much so that mass-extinction protests started breaking out everywhere, with many of the participants quite young. Frankly, I don’t think yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is a joke, nor do I think joking about the world ending in 12 years is funny. But if it’s such a joke, why was it tied in with the Green New Deal? (Answer: That’s a joke too.)

Example #2:

Let’s take what Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf has…

View original post 500 more words

Mass extinction lie exposed: life is thriving

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Geologist Gregory Wrightstone, who runs the Inconvenient Blog website has taken a close look at the latest claims of mass extinction, and finds the claims are baseless:

image

One million species will become extinct in the not-too-distant future and we are to blame. That is the conclusion of a new study by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The 1,800 page study was issued on May 6th and warns that “human actions threaten more species with global extinction now than ever before” and that “around 1 million species already face extinction, many within decades, unless action is taken to reduce the intensity of drivers of biodiversity loss.”

View original post 623 more words