Perhaps inspired by the success of Coronavirus fearmongering in impoverishing the formerly prosperous West, global warming enthusiasts are beginning to agitate to list “climate change” as the cause of death on death certificates. The widely observed practice of listing Coronavirus as the cause of death for anyone who died with it, not necessarily of it, has worked wonders in scaring people into accepting previously unheard-of abrogation of constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The seed for this propaganda offensive was just planted in a spinoff publication of The Lancet, the formerly prestigious British medical journal that has fallen to the forces of political correctness. In a letter appearing the The Lancet Planetary Health (hat tip: Breitbart), researchers at The Australian National University write:
National mortality records in Australia suggest substantial under-reporting of heat-related mortality. Less than 0·1% of 1·7 million deaths between 2006 and 2017 were attributed directly or indirectly to excessive natural heat (table). However, recent research indicates that official records underestimate the association at least 50-fold.
Understanding the degree to which environmental factors affect human health is important if the impact of climate change is to be fully appreciated. As severe environmental events become more common, correct reporting and attribution is needed for effective evidence-based responses and to guide local, national, and global adaptation.
Because science is the pursuit of knowledge, and political actions almost necessarily restrict personal freedom, science, laws, and regulations should use the best available data. Using bad data undermines both the pursuit of truth and the legitimate justification of laws and regulations.
Everyone, from the far left to the far right on the political spectrum, should be able to agree about this.
Sadly, in the field of climate research and climate policy, good data, when not ignored entirely, is increasingly twisted to fit the narrative claiming that humans are causing a climate crisis. Climate action partisans, in pursuit of political power and ever increasing resources, force data to fit their delusion that humans must forego modern, industrial civilization to save humanity and the earth from climate doom.
This problem is more than evident in a recent report from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on global temperature trends. Between them, the two agencies operate the most accurate, comprehensive system of temperature measuring instruments in the world. But rather than cite data from their best sources when NASA and NOAA reported global temperatures on January 15, they chose to use severely compromised data from temperature readings adjusted—in a process called “homogenization”—they and others gathered from biased monitoring stations.
NASA and NOAA announced that 2019 was the second warmest year since modern record keeping began in 1880, helping to make the 2010s the “warmest decade on record.”
These claims are based on the utterly unreliable adjusted temperature measurements recorded by surface temperature stations scattered across the globe. These measurements, at least the raw data from them, are usually sufficiently accurate to inform local inhabitants of the temperature and weather anomalies in their area on a particular day, but as measures of actual trends telling us something important about whether humans are causing global warming, most of them are virtually worthless.
As has been hammered home repeatedly over the years by meteorologist Anthony Watts (who is also a Senior Fellow with The Heartland Institute), many of the monitoring stations throughout the United States fail to meet the standards established by the agencies themselves for reliable data measurement. Watts recorded hundreds of stations on pavement, at airports collecting jet exhaust, located next to artificial sources of hot and cold, such as air conditioning systems or commercial grill heat exhausts. Many of these stations were once located in rural areas, but are now surrounded by development, and others are rural stations where data is not recorded or monitored regularly.
After Watts’ 2014 revelations, the U.S. Office of the Inspector General issued a scathing report, almost entirely ignored by the media, that found lack of oversight, non-compliance, and a lax review process for the climate recording network led it to conclude program data “cannot be consistently relied upon by decision-makers.” In a panic, during the investigative process that resulted in the Inspector General’s report, NOAA closed approximately 600 of its most problematic weather stations.
Numerous reports have shown data manipulation is not limited to the United States, but is common across the globe. Temperatures recorded at pristine rural monitoring stations in far flung locations such as Australia, Paraguay, and Switzerland have been inexplicably homogenized so that past temperatures are now reported as cooler than were actually recorded, and recent temperatures are now reported as warmer than were recorded, necessarily making the temperature rise at these locations over the past century appear steeper and larger than the unadjusted data indicate.
NOAA violated its own rules when it undertook a similar adjustment process for recording ocean temperatures, beginning in 2015. As David Rose wrote for the Daily Mail, “[NOAA scientists] took reliable readings from [ocean] buoys but then ‘adjusted’ them upwards—using readings from seawater intakes on ships … even though readings from the ships have long been known to be too hot.” When you mix bad data with good, you no more produce reliable results than you do by adding muddy river water to purified bottle water to produce safe drinking water.
NASA and NOAA’s new report is another instance of “garbage in, garbage out,” in which their use of bad data produces flawed results, which, based on experience, will be used to push bad policies.
NASA and NOAA jointly or separately operate the U.S. Climate Reference Network, the gold standard of surface temperature data, global satellites, and weather balloons. The temperature data recorded by these three independent, unbiased temperature-measuring networks show minimal warming over the past 40 years. Yet the agencies ignored these data sets in their recent report—proving their dogmatic belief in a human-caused climate catastrophe.
NASA and NOAA are like toddlers trying to fit square pegs into round holes, and just as likely as toddlers to throw fits when their efforts are stymied by reality.
The Trump administration should steeply cut NASA and NOAA’s climate budgets until agency heads and career staff get the message they will not be rewarded for repeatedly telling “sky is falling” climate scare stories, when the truth about temperature and climate trends is, in fact, far from alarming.
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. (firstname.lastname@example.org) is a senior fellow on energy and the environment at The Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research center headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois.
If the “science is settled” regarding global warming, climate change, extreme weather, or whatever it goes by these days, why are past predictions not more accurate?
Weather forecasting, although frequently off the mark, is usually fairly accurate. If snow is predicted, it typically falls. It may be a few inches more or less than predicted but it isn’t sunny and 80 degrees on a day a major snowstorm is forecast.
Yet climate, which is a longer-term measure of weather, cannot be predicted with any more accuracy than flipping a coin or throwing dice. Let’s look at some past predictions.
Almost twenty years ago, in 2004, the Guardian reported what U.S. defense officials at the Pentagon warned about the future climate:
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.
A secret report, suppressed by US defense chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
As 2020 has just arrived, let’s see how those predictions turned out. For New Year’s Day, London is predicted to have a high of 46 degrees. While in Novosibirsk, the largest city in Siberia, the New Year’s Day high was only 23 degrees. So much for “Britain is plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020.”
London was Siberia at one time, but 200 years ago. Remember the snow and ice in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol? “Dickens grew up during the coldest years of the Little Ice Age, between 1805 to 1820.”
As to the “nuclear conflicts, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting,” I don’t see any of that either as 2020 arrives. Well, perhaps big media is rioting as its dreams of overturning the last election have been fruitless.
This climate prophesy also claimed, “As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.” One year after the 2004 report would be 2005, 15 years ago.
I don’t recall any rising sea levels or major upheavals, other than Hurricane Katrina, which flooded the below sea level city of New Orleans due to city officials not spending allocated monies on levee reinforcement. Don’t blame corrupt financial mismanagement of American cities on global warming.
One of the report’s authors warned, “It was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. We don’t know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years.” Well it didn’t start tomorrow and five years later, in 2009, the only brewing disaster facing America was Obamacare.
There is a plethora of other failed catastrophic climate predictions. Thirty years ago, the Indian Ocean was to swallow the Maldives. Al Gore, in 2009, predicted the North Pole Ice cap would be melted within the next five to seven years. Yet the Maldives are still there and icebreakers are getting stuck in Arctic Sea ice.
Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist, wrote The Population Bomb in 1968. Among his predictions:
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” He later went on to forecast that hundreds of millions would starve to death in the 1970s, that 65 million of them would be Americans, that crowded India was essentially doomed, that odds were fair “England will not exist in the year 2000.” Dr. Ehrlich was so sure of himself that he warned in 1970 that “sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come.” By “the end,” he meant “an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”
The only end that is coming is for dirty deep state players, assuming Barr and Durham do their jobs. But England is alive and well, and soon leaving the EU. India seems to be thriving too. It wasn’t a population bomb but instead a prediction bomb.
Speaking of England, Prince Charles has been predicting the end of the world as often as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has been telling everyone that Trump is about to be found guilty of collusion, treason, tax evasion, and coloring his hair.
In July 2009, the good prince predicted there were only 96 months to save the world. That’s eight years, or July 2017, just a couple of months after Robert Mueller began his investigation witch-hunt against President Trump. It wasn’t the end of the world, only the end of Rachel Maddow and the credibility of her fellow “journalists.”.
In 2015, Charles extended the deadline by 33 years. How generous. Too bad he didn’t give his brother, Andrew, a 33-year extension to talk his way out of his Jeffrey Epstein mess.
This year, the Prince of Wales changed his tune again, “Warning that if we don’t tackle climate change in 18 months the human race will go extinct.” If the prince doesn’t get a handle on his brother and his underage girls, the royal family may go extinct within 18 months.
One year ago, Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told us the world will end in 12 years. Now we are down to 11 years. The failed or flailing Democrat presidential candidates agree.
Beto O’Rourke says, “We don’t have more than 10 years to get this right.” Mayor Pete is a bit more generous, saying, “Science tells us we have 12 years before we reach the horizon of catastrophe when it comes to our climate.” Andrew Yang threw in the towel, announcing, “We are 10 years too late. We need to do everything we can to start moving the climate in the right direction, but we also need to start moving our people to higher ground.”
Why don’t they all give it up and stop trying to predict the unpredictable? The IPCC acknowledges, “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
We can only predict the obvious, that the climate does change over time. Cooling leads to ice ages and warming melts the ice, as has been occurring on the planet for millions of years. This has been happening long before humans roamed the Earth, drove SUVs, and grilled burgers in their backyards.
We don’t even know what normal climate is. Is today colder than normal or warmer? Not over the past hundred years but over the past hundred million years.
For those who claim to know the unknowable, I say “How dare you,” borrowing the catch phrase of the world’s foremost climate expert, a bratty teenager from Sweden.
“Climate experts believe the next ice age is on its way…within a lifetime…” Leonard Nimoy 1978
The really sad part of all this is that Leonard Nimoy was right. In 1978 this is what “climate experts” believed. Like today, they were blaming the weather on humans and their polluting lifestyles. And, like today, part of the problem, along with particulate matter, was the evil carbon dioxide. As one government scientist concludes according to this 1970 article in the St. Petersburg Times, “doubling CO2 in the atmosphere…would raise surface temperatures by 3.6 Fahrenheit and [here’s the kicker] cool the lower stratosphere some 27 degrees.” Holy iceberg, Batman!!!
Below you’ll find similar hysterics from the 1970s global cooling alarmist crowd in a long (but partial) list of 100 newspaper and magazine articles from the period. I wonder, after 15 years of no global warming, when will we start to view the hundreds if not thousands of scare stories from newspapers, magazines, and TV newscasts over the last 20 years with the same sense of humor with which we now view these stories from 40 years ago? Have fun!
Leading Climate Alarmist Freaks Out over Australia Bushfires?
Michael Mann, arguably the world’s no. 1 climate alarmist, writes Wednesday that he is “watching climate change in action” while on holiday in Australia.
In a Guardianessay titled “Australia, your country is burning – dangerous climate change is here with you now,” Mann, best known for his debunked “hockey stick” graph showing unprecedented 20th-century global warming after centuries of supposed level temperatures, says he is witnessing the devastating effects of climate change “first hand
Mann writes that he took his family “to see the Great Barrier Reef – one of the great wonders of this planet – while we still can.”
“Subject to the twin assaults of warming-caused bleaching and ocean acidification, it will be gone in a matter of decades in the absence of a dramatic reduction in global carbon emissions,” Mann prophesies.
The Blue Mountains, as well, “another of Australia’s natural wonders,” Mann laments, “is now threatened by climate change.”
“I witnessed this firsthand,” he states.
Mann does not explain how it was possible for him to witness climate change “first hand,” which would be difficult to do, since by definition climate change — unlike weather — takes place over long periods of time.
Instead of “vast expanses of rainforest framed by distant blue-tinged mountain ranges,” Mann looked out into “smoke-filled valleys, with only the faintest ghosts of distant ridges and peaks in the background.”
“The locals, whom I found to be friendly and outgoing, would volunteer that they have never seen anything like this before. Some even uttered the words ‘climate change’ without any prompting,” Mann declares, as apparent proof that he was witnessing climate change “first hand.”
Mann goes on to make proclamations that only a publication as ideologically compromised as the Guardian would think to publish.
“The brown skies I observed in the Blue Mountains this week are a product of human-caused climate change,” Mann states.
It’s a scientific fact that whatever liberals believe is false, so if they believe in global warming it is most certainly untrue.
Busted: Scientists Lied About Rising Ocean Temperatures & Global Warming
It comes as no surprise to many of us that scientists have lied about the rising ocean temperatures and global warming. What is shocking, however, is when the liberal media is forced to eat crow and admit climate change data is bunk. In a surprising admission, leftists were actually forced to admit reality, and it didn’t help the global warming narrative they desperately try to push. https://www.thelibertytimes.com/scientists-lied-global-warming/
The ocean plays an important part in taking up energy from the Sun and stopping the Earth getting too hot.
States in the Northeast are warming more over the long and short-term than other U.S. regions, according to a USA Today analysis of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data.
Why it matters: The changes have manifested in the unusual appearance of warm-water fish off the New England coast, the warming of the Great Lakes, and higher ocean temperatures, which influence coastal weather and push snowfall farther inland.
By the numbers: Long-term data shows Rhode Island‘s average temperature increased by 3.64 degrees from its average in the 20th century, according to NOAA data going back to 1895.
New Jersey is 3.49 degrees warmer, while Connecticut is up by 3.22 degrees; Maine, 3.17; Massachusetts, 3.05; and New Hampshire, 2.93.
Secretary of State John Kerry recently warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”
Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.
In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Educationin August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.
Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”
Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
Alaska residents accustomed to subzero temperatures are experiencing a heat wave of sorts that is shattering records, with the thermometer jumping to more than 30 degrees Fahrenheit (16.7 Celsius) above normal in some regions.