Climate Hysterics Skyrocket Even As Weather Disasters Haven’t

Posted: January 21, 2019 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Critique, Emissions, ideology, modelling

Increasingly absurd disaster rhetoric is consistently contradicted by climate and weather data and backed up by little more than obstinate assertions, says Paul Driessen at Climate Change Dispatch.
– – –
Call it climate one-upmanship. It seems everyone has to outdo previous climate chaos rhetoric.

The “climate crisis” is the “existential threat of our time,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her House colleagues. We must “end the inaction and denial of science that threatens the planet and the future.”

Former California Governor Jerry Brown solemnly intoned that America has “an enemy, though different, but perhaps very much devastating in a similar way” as the Nazis in World War II.

Not to be outdone, two PhDs writing in Psychology Today declared that “the human race faces extinction” if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels.

And yet “even people who experience extreme weather events often still refuse to report the experiences as a manifestation of climate change.” Psychologists, they lament, “have never had to face denial on this scale before.”

Then there’s Oxford University doctoral candidate Samuel Miller-McDonald. He’s convinced the only thing that could save people and planet from cataclysmic climate change is cataclysmic nuclear war that “shuts down the global economy but stops short of human extinction.”

All this headline-grabbing gloom and doom, however, is backed up by little more than computer models, obstinate assertions that the science is settled, and a steady litany of claims that temperatures, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts et cetera are unprecedented, worse than ever before, and due to fossil fuels.

And on the basis of these hysterics, we are supposed to give up the carbon-based fuels that provide over 80% of the U.S.’ and global energy, gladly reduce our living standards – and put our jobs and economy at the mercy of expensive, unreliable, weather dependent, pseudo-renewable wind, solar and biofuel energy.

As in any civil or criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the accusers and prosecutors who want to sentence fossil fuels to oblivion. They need to provide more than blood-curdling charges, opening statements and summations. They need to provide convincing real-world evidence to prove their case.

They have refused to do so. They ignore the way rising atmospheric carbon-dioxide is spurring plant growth and greening the planet. They blame every extreme weather event on fossil fuel emissions, but cannot explain the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age or extreme weather events decades or centuries ago – or why we have had fewer extreme weather events in recent decades.

They simply resort to trial in media and other forums where they can exclude exculpatory evidence, bar any case for the fossil fuel defense, and prevent any cross-examination of their witnesses, assertions and make-believe evidence.

Climate models are not evidence. At best, they offer scenarios of what might happen if the assumptions on which they are based turn out to be correct.

However, the average prediction by 102 models is now a full degree F (0.55 C) above what satellites are actually measuring.

Models that cannot be confirmed by actual observations are of little value and certainly should not be a basis for vital energy policymaking.

The alarmist mantra seems to be: If models and reality don’t agree, reality must be wrong.

Continued here.

  1. JB says:

    Nancy and Jerry are not only threats to our future, but the present nemesis. (Nemesy?)

  2. oldbrew says:


    A major winter storm has wreaked havoc across a swath of the country, pounding the Midwest and Northeast with rain, snow and ice and causing multiple fatalities.

    More than 100 million people were placed under winter storm watch and almost 4,000 flights were canceled over the weekend, according to FlyAware.

    “This kind of storm doesn’t come along very often, and it’s a severe storm that represents a risk to life and limb,” Joel N. Myers, president and founder of AccuWeather, a commercial weather forecasting site, said.
    . . .
    On Twitter, President Trump encouraged people to be careful and stay indoors—before taking the opportunity to suggest that such cold temperatures clearly cast doubt on global warming. “Wouldn’t be bad to have a little of that good old fashioned Global Warming right now!” he wrote.
    – – –
    Cue alarmist meltdowns 🤣

  3. stpaulchuck says:

    they all hitched their wagons to this farce as a way to take more and more power over our lives while forcing more and more of our wealth into their hands. They are desperate to keep the fiction going as the wheels come off the wagon.

    THEY are the existential threat to the world.

  4. Phoenix44 says:

    Given the ongoing Reproducibility Crisis in science, anybody who is not a “science denier” is not up to date with what is happening in science. If 50-80% of science papers over the last 20-30 years are wrong, false or faked, where does that leave climate science?

  5. tom0mason says:

    As the planet moves into a colder period the cAGW alarmists’ rhetoric gets evermore banal.
    Time is running out for the globalist and the cAGW advocates, to put the brakes on Western societies and industries by controlling the energy markets, and they know it.

    If the 2019-2020 winter is also very cold across the USA and Europe (and it quite possibly will be) then the writing is on the wall for public’s compliance with the supposition that atmospheric CO2 level rise causes extreme warming of the planet, and all that involves. Science will be the loser in this outcome. Many may question the public funding of science if such basic science as aspects of the climate can be so publicly seen to be wrong.

  6. Graeme No.3 says:

    Ah, but here in Adelaide (South Australia – the blackout State) we are being bombarded with claims that Thursday will be dangerously hot. That’s following 3 days last week of 40-41℃ and probably the same this week, but Thursday will be different, extreme heat, even as high as experienced in 1939.
    The heating effect of CO2 must be obvious to all deniers.

  7. tom0mason says:

    Graeme No.3,
    If the long range weather models are to be believed (JMA, CFS) Australia’s February is likely to be about normal (see notes on the site pages below), or (in the last 2 weeks) mostly cooler than normal.
    JMA 28 day forecast —

    CFS weeks 1 & 2,

    CFS weeks 3 & 4,

  8. oldbrew says:

    Carbon pricing dropped from new Franco-German treaty

    The two countries intend to “bring forward the energy transition in all relevant sectors,” and “develop their cooperation” to “finance, develop and implement joint projects, particularly in infrastructure, renewable energy and energy efficiency,” according to the revised text.

    Just the usual mumbo jumbo then.

  9. oldbrew says:

    Date: 23/01/19 Holman W. Jenkins Jr., The Wall Street Journal

    How ‘Occupied,’ a Netflix show about Norway, could presage civil strife in Canada.

    Now back to Alberta: In the provincial capital of Edmonton, house prices have been falling for three years. Car sales are drying up. One-third of Calgary’s office buildings are empty. Though production is booming, Alberta’s oil was recently selling for barely $10 a barrel—an 80% discount to the world price. Why? Because opposition from neighboring provinces has blocked construction of needed pipelines.