Pakistan’s floods and the climate attribution con – Net Zero Watch

Posted: September 19, 2022 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Critique, media, modelling, Uncertainty, weather

We know what to expect from the climate propaganda machine. Here’s a critique of the ‘nudge’ method.
– – –
Climate alarmism and journalistic bias have reached new heights of misleading hype on the catastrophic flooding in Pakistan which is reported to have received more than three times its annual rainfall in August, says NZW.

The question is, of course, if human-induced climate change has had anything to do with making the floods more dramatic that could reasonably have been expected in the absence of human influences, i.e, as a result of a natural disaster that have been hitting the Indian subcontinent for centuries.

The answer (as given in the small print) by climate scientists at the world weather attribution project is ‘no’ – although it is quite obvious that they, the BBC and much of the news media, don’t like this answer.

As a result, they go all around the scientific and journalistic houses to give the contrary impression.

When the case they want to make cannot be made they claim that the picture is “complex.” How can scientists think that this sort of thing is acceptable?

The BBC report says that “global warming is likely to have played a role in then devastating floods that hit Pakistan, say scientists.” On the face of it “likely” might, or might not, mean a better than 50% chance, but in this case it doesn’t. Far from it.

Consider the revealing statement by Friederike Otto of Imperial College London, one of the World Weather Attribution team:

Our evidence suggests that climate change played an important role in the event, although our analysis doesn’t allow us to quantify how big the role was.”

So now we have “important role,” added to “likely!” Are you being nudged in the right direction yet? Then we have the admission they don’t know how big this “important role” is? And it gets even stupider.

The world weather attribution website analysis has as its main conclusion the rather unsurprising conclusion that the flooding occurred as a direct consequence of the extreme monsoon rainfall.

Then it long-windedly goes on to explain why climate models are no good when it comes to analysing the event or its connection to climate change, concluding that the existence of natural variability means it is actually

infeasible to quantify the overall role of human-induced climate change.”

Well, you don’t say. But wait, there’s more confusion.

Full article here.

  1. […] Pakistan’s floods and the climate attribution con – Net Zero Watch | Tallbloke’s Talkshop … […]

  2. oldbrew says:

    NZW: they admit the event is well within the range of historical natural variability pointing out that 2022 was the wettest year since err…1961!


  3. Gamecock says:

    Their problem is that no quantities are given when you read the chicken bones.

  4. oldbrew says:

    Pakistan’s climate minister demands climate ‘reparations’ due to bad weather
    . . .

  5. Phoenix44 says:

    I’ve just finished Stuart Ritchies “Science Fictions” which (apart from the now obligatory chapter on how climate science apparently doesn’t suffer any of the problems the rest of the book describes) is an excellent if depressing read. Much of recent science, across much of science, is simply hugely problematic. Outright fraud is less rare than you’d think, error, bias, prejudice, laziness…all common. And basically most scientists either don’t care or claim its nothing to do with them. Reading the book it’s clear that modern science has very little to do with what most people think science is. It’s no wonder we are at a standstill in many areas.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Chief UN climate miserablist says: hammer the fossil fuel companies. He should ask himself who their customers are, and what effect such economic brutalism might have (e.g. even higher prices). The poor guy is suffering from some kind of delusion by the sound of it – ‘world on fire’ etc. Or he wants others to buy his manic nonsense. Or both. Do everyone a favour and go and lie down in a dark room until the fever passes.
    . . .
    If there was no demand for their products, all the fossil fuel companies would obviously be finished but > 100 million barrels a day consumption says otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s