Experts say there is no ‘climate emergency’

Posted: June 22, 2019 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, IPCC, propaganda, Psychobabble

Image credit:

H/T The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

Broadly speaking, two separate arguments bear the climate label. One is whether there is something wrong (whatever that may mean) with the climate, and the other is whether humans are causing changes to the climate. Of course the two are usually run together as one issue, or supposed issue. Here Canadian Professor Ross McKitrick looks at the first aspect, advising readers to ‘Clip out this column, keep it close at hand, and quote from the experts when the occasion arises.’ But most people find themselves exhorted to panic first and ignore all the underlying realities, despite the lack of anything worth panicking about.
– – –
On June 7, I published an op-ed on this page telling the story of Roger Pielke Jr., a U.S. climate expert whose research on climate change and extreme weather didn’t support many of the alarmist slogans on the subject.

Despite his findings being squarely in the mainstream of his academic specialty, for stating them publicly Pielke Jr. was vilified, bullied and eventually harassed into quitting the field.

Conservative MP Lisa Raitt tweeted a link to my article. As if to prove the point of the story, the climate mob quickly vilified, bullied and harassed her into deleting her tweet.

I wrote Lisa an open letter, hoping she would notice the pattern.

Legions of self-appointed “fact checkers” readily ignore even the most deranged exaggerations by politicians if they serve the cause of alarmism but will pile on aggressively and relentlessly against any efforts to bring evidence into the discussion.

But let us not be deterred. The evidence is in the relevant sections of the past Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report, which I will now quote at length. Read these paragraphs and ask yourself if the word “emergency” applies. Ask yourself if it sounds anything like what you have been repeatedly told by our environment minister and the prime minister, who speak so often about these things.

Flooding: “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.” (p. 214)

To which they added, in their 2012 report on the subject, “In the United States and Canada during the 20th century and in the early 21st century, there is no compelling evidence for climate-driven changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods.” (p. 176)

Droughts: “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, owing to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice.” (p. 215)

The report goes on to point out that there is a decreasing trend in droughts in central North America.

Continued here.
– – –
See also: Climate science’s ‘masking bias’ problem
Posted on June 21, 2019 by Judith Curry

  1. Phoenix44 says:

    I love the “at present” caveat, which suggests the evidence will appear in time. The evidence we have is the evidence. So the evidence is that droughts are not increasing. Thats it. Nothing more. This low confidence and at the present stuff is wholly unscientific.

  2. oldbrew says:

    Confirmation bias demands they look for certain signs, then call them evidence if they think they find them, and ignore anything else. (see footnote to the blog post)

    Meanwhile, solar minimum takes hold…

  3. Graeme No.3 says:

    The problem is the exaggerations and outright lies being told.
    Was getting tested for new glasses yesterday and was handed page to test read. In it was said “the world is heating up due to human emissions of greenhouse gasses. Already it has warmed 0.2℃ per decade (for the last 30 years) and is now hotter than it has been anytime in the last 12,000 years.” Quoting James Hansen.
    One startled optician. The General Manager will be getting a rude letter.
    But David King got away with similar fact free claims when he must have known he was lying.

  4. wicker man says:

    Professor Ross McKitrick and Pilke jnr are not climate experts nor even climate scientists according to their own university resume.

  5. S.mueller says:

    Hang on squire. Mckitrick and pielke jr are not climate scientists nor climate experts. So how is the title of the reference valid? If this is not the case there must be corroborating evidence from original research which perhaps you could publish?

  6. stpaulchuck says:

    I got into a couple day back and forth with a warmist on another blog when I commented on some specious CO2 nonsense from some pols. This guy then started throwing in all sorts of bafflegarb about CFC’s and ozone and a host of other nonsense. When I presented references to Nikolov and Zeller, and Scafetta, the papers on solar wind strength related to cosmic rays related to cloud formation and albedo, etc., he brought up Mann and a couple other proven liars as “evidence”. Seriously??

    AGW IS a religion. It is the religion of the Climate Caliphate out to rule the world through the back door of carbon and the Satanic Gases. Their acolytes are the easily fooled and the untethered types looking for any religious anchor in life.

  7. oldbrew says:

    Some complaining commenters either didn’t read as far as, or didn’t notice, this:

    The evidence is in the relevant sections of the past Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report, which I will now quote at length.

  8. hunterson7 says:

    Notice that the trolls hope to imply that only properly vetted (by the climate consensus) people are permitted to read and quote the holy IPCC scripture.
    What a bunch of maroons.

  9. Wicker Man, thermodynamics, heat transfer and fluid dynamics are Chemical and mechanical engineering subjects. Professional chemical and mechanical engineers with appropriate experience are the only ones in a position to make an assessment of climate and changes in climate. There are lots of incompetents, liars and naive people around who make false assumptions usually for political reason. I suggest you are a naive troll who is pushing the global socialist religion.

  10. oldbrew says:

    JUNE 21, 2019
    Cognitive dissonance: Canada declares a national climate emergency and approves a pipeline

    On June 18, the government of Canada declared a national climate emergency. The next day, the same government approved the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (TMX), which will be able to move almost 600,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta to the Port of Burnaby in British Columbia.

    If this seems like a contradiction, you are not alone.
    – – –
    So-called virtue signalling on imagined man-made climate problems is not compatible with running an efficient modern economy. Choose one or the other.

  11. oldbrew says:

    The Sun is so Blank, It Looks Like a Billiard Ball
    JUNE 22, 2019 / DR.TONY PHILLIPS

    What happens when sunspots vanish? For one thing, solar flares stop happening. No big explosions means no shortwave radio blackouts and fewer geomagnetic storms. Also, the sun dims. Sunspots are sources of extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV). Without sunspots, EUV levels decrease, causing Earth’s upper atmosphere to cool and contract. Satellites and space junk stay in orbit longer as aerodynamic drag subsides.

    During this phase of the solar cycle, the solar wind slows and the sun’s magnetic field weakens–shields down! This allows extra cosmic rays from deep space to penetrate the solar system. Indeed, recent high altitude balloon flights show increased radiation in Earth’s atmosphere. Extra cosmic rays can trigger lightning, alter the electro-chemistry of the upper atmosphere, and boost dose rates on commercial airplane flights.

  12. michael hart says:

    Wicker Man is only half-right, but, in context, fully wrong, in saying that Roger Pielke Jr. is not a climate expert.

    “..Roger Pielke Jr., a U.S. climate expert whose research on climate change and extreme weather didn’t support many of the alarmist slogans on the subject.”

    Pielke Jr. has never claimed to be a climate scientist (I would be ashamed of that moniker too). He was merely reporting what the IPCC official reports actually said about extreme weather events showing no significant rise in intensity or frequency. He was the proverbial messenger who got shot for reporting the truth. A truth that climate alarmists couldn’t or wouldn’t read for themselves.

  13. stpaulchuck says:

    “Shields up! Prepare for attack.” as I quote this from the IPCC:
    “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis

  14. For those questioning the resume of Pielke, I point out the resume of Kathryn Hayhoe, an oft-quoted “climate scientist” and a major contributor to the National Climate Assessment:

    Her PhD is in political science.

    You can’t have it both ways folks. If Pielke is not qualified, then neither is Hayhoe.

  15. oldbrew says:

    Some of the IPCC’s own contributors are not qualified climate scientists either. Does this bother alarmists? We think not.

  16. E.M.Smith says:

    What I see folks here doing is what I call “be the mirror” and refusing to play the asymmetrical game.

    Someone bleats that so ‘n so isn’t a “climate scientist”, toss it right back at them about their “experts”. Someone attack using the IPCC reports, toss it right back with IPCC quotes.

    Very well done.

    One point I’d add: the Alynsky Method requires insults, character assasination, and shout downs with the goal of driving the opposition from the public square. The counter is simply to immediately forbid those “tools” and shift the discussion to their “bad behaviour” in doing them. That is, use their tactic of “name & shame” for Alynsky actions.

    If you don’t kniw who Alynsky is or his method, read “Rules For Radicals”. It is always helpful to read your opponents Play Book….

    In Rules for Radicals (his final work, published in 1971 one year before his death), Alinsky wrote at the end of his personal acknowledgements:

    Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.

    In the book, he addressed the 1960s generation of radicals, outlining his views on organizing for mass power. In the opening paragraph Alinsky writes:

    What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.

    Your day to day encounters with warmist troops is shaped by his method…

    Also useful:

  17. oldbrew says:

    European heatwave on the way, drawing in warm air from north Africa. Climate alarmists will pounce on it for propaganda material no doubt.

    June 23, 2019
    Millions to swelter as heat wave builds from Madrid to Paris, London this week
    By Eric Leister, AccuWeather senior meteorologist
    By Adam Douty, AccuWeather senior meteorologist

    Unseasonable warmth has prevailed across much of Europe this month, and another round of heat is on the way.

    A potentially dangerous heat wave will grip a large swath of western and northern Europe this week.
    . . .
    In the hottest locations on Wednesday and Thursday, temperatures could approach 38 C (100 F).

  18. oldbrew says:

    Oregon Democrats claim there is a climate emergency, which then allows them to put forward legislation that would normally require a referendum. So Republicans disappear…

  19. gallopingcamel says:

    wicker man, June 22, 2019 at 3:08 pm
    You said:
    “Professor Ross McKitrick and Pilke jnr are not climate experts nor even climate scientists according to their own university resume.”

    Very few “Climate Scientists” are real scientists if you believe that science must be replicable and must be testable by comparing predictions against reality (aka observations).

    Most “Climate Scientists” say whatever will get them funded by the political elites who hold the purse strings. That makes them “Climate Whores” at best and “Liars” at worst..

  20. gallopingcamel says:

    “Climate Science” is an example of Postmodernism. Facts and reason no longer matter. What matters is your good intentions and your feelings…… that you care!

    As the learned Chiefio (E.M.Smith) points out above we are fighting a political battle against people who use the Alynsky Method. Facts and reason don’t matter. Some of the tools used are:

    1. Words as weapons. Attack the person when the facts are against you.
    2. Physical force to intimidate if you can get away with it and failing that confront people with written or verbal abuse.
    3. Lefty “Environmentalism” no matter how destructive and immoral it may be.
    4. “Multiculturalism” and “Moral Equivalence”.

  21. stpaulchuck says:

    I leave it to the Warmist Imam of the Climate Caliphate to straighten you guys out: