Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
A study in Germany finds senior citizens are responsible for climate change. That’s right; they’re saying it’s all because of your (or you) grannies and gramps. From down under, a BBC editor in Australia believes her country warmed more than 90 deg C (160 deg F) since 1900. And back in Europe, in response to reports that climate change is the biggest global-health threat, there’s a new paper contradicting it. One paper says climate change is the worst thing for our future health and a rebuttal paper say nope, but they’re both science fiction. And then there’s the big goofiness taking place.
GERMANY
Pierre Gosselin of NoTrickZone reports on the news story that appeared in TAZ. (See the Google translation of the TAZ article Are seniors responsible for climate change?) Pierre writes in the opening of his post Germany’s Growing Green Dictatorship: Grandmothers Putting Climate Protection Targets “In Jeopardy”!:
Not only do the hysterical global warming bedwetters want us to do it with the lights off in unheated room with all our clothes on, now they are poised to request senior citizens to leave their cars in the garage and get around in the rain and snow by foot with their Rollators.
Read the rest here.
AUSTRALIA
In her post The Green Blob expands: BBC wants Australian ratings. Their editor Wendy Frew heats Aust by 90C., Jo Nova reports on a BBC News editor in Australia who managed to exaggerate the warming in Australia by a factor of 100. The BCC has corrected the story without noting the correction, so see the WaybackMachine archived version of the story Australia has hottest spring on record as temperatures soar (very slow to load.)
Jo Nova writes:
Their new Australian Editor, Wendy Frew, accidentally revealed that while she’s good at rearranging a press release and calling it news, she is not too good with numbers.
In a BBC article yesterday by Wendy Frew titled “Australia has hottest spring on record as temperatures soar” comes the extraordinary news that Australia has warmed by 90C since 1910.
“Australia has been warming up by about 0.9C [a year] since 1910,” Dr Braganza told the BBC.
That’ll hurt tourism down under. Read the rest here.
GREAT BRITAIN
Over at Bishop Hill, in his post Doctor, get a grip of yourself, Andrew Montford reminds us of the 2009 University College London (UCL) report Climate change: The biggest global-health threat of the 21st century, and then introduces a new paper contradicting the 2009 report, Is climate change the greatest threat to global health? with authors from… Well, I’ll let the Bishop tell it:
The health lobby’s contributions to the climate debate have been at best eccentric and typically irrational. Who can forget Andy Haines’ putting the cost of carbon at $1000 per tonne, for example? Or what about UCL’s Anthony Costello telling the world that climate change is the biggest threat to global health, sentiments echoed by Fiona Godlee at the BMJ here.
It’s amusing then to see a team of geographers from, erm, UCL, among them Mark Maslin, effectively telling the health lobby to get a grip…
Read the rest here.
So we have one report telling us that climate change is the biggest threat to our future health and another report contradicting it. That’s common place. Something else, though, is goofy about it.
Any and all prognostications of future climate are based on climate models. But the climate models used by the IPCC for their reports are not simulating climate on Earth. We know that because one of the lead authors of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th IPCC assessment reports confessed that back in 2007. See the post Seven Years Ago, An IPCC Lead Author Exposed Critical Weaknesses of the IPCC Foretelling Tools. Climate models are simulating climate on fantasy planets. Rephrased, they’re nothing more than computer-aided science fiction. They are definitely not simulating the planet we live on…the one we call home, Earth.
And we’re supposed to believe the foreseeings of future health that rely on science fiction?
I wonder what Star Trek’s Dr. McCoy would have to say about the hypothesis of human-induced global warming. Something along the lines of “…worse than dead…”
THE BIG GOOFINESS
The big goofiness is, of course, the UNFCCC Climate Change Conference taking place in Lima, Peru. Political delegates from countries around the globe have gathered in Lima to try to work out a new agreement to reduce emissions of greenhouse gas emissions…in an effort to limit global warming to a value established decades ago by politicians. Keep in mind, when the UNFCCC was created back in the early 1990s, the 1st IPCC Assessment Report was inconclusive about man’s role in global warming.
So what other global-warming goofiness from around the globe have you run across lately?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From the NoTrickZone piece:
“Meanwhile, German politicians, NGOs, and activists are all flying (some in first class) and burning tons of jet fuel (at taxpayer expense) all the way to South America – for the 20th climate conference which is aimed at finding ways to protect the climate….”
Quote:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” — H.L. Mencken
Damned hypocrites….all of them.
“Australia has been warming up by about 0.9C [a year] since 1910,” Dr Braganza told the BBC.
I actually see this as hopeful. The newsperson has been steeped in a culture of imminent Climate catastrophe, Warmest Year Ever, potential extinction of the human race, etc. So, naturally she has internalized that this is a BIG BIG problem. Then she interviews this scientist, and he tells her that the earth as warmed 0.9 degrees since 1910. She dutifully writes it down, but then when she goes back to put together the story she sees the number in her notes and thinks “Huh? This isn’t scary Climate Doom.” So she connects the dots and thinks he must have meant 0.9 degrees PER YEAR, and inserts that into the story inside brackets.
I don’t see it as a story about ignorance or trying to scare people so much as a story where someone did a reality check and figured out for herself that the rhetoric didn’t match the data, leading to a bungled attempt to join the two together.
Now that her error was uncovered, I figure she has two paths to follow. Either she concludes that she has been duped by the alarmists and starts down the Skeptic path, or she suppresses her own common sense and jumps on the bandwagon where less than a degree of warming since 1910 guarantees certain death for humanity.
I wonder, has anyone told her that we are in an interglacial period and warming should be the norm?
when you say-
“Now that her error was uncovered, I figure she has two paths to follow”
you are thinking as a critical thinker. i doubt she is a critical thinker or she would have questioned the claims already. after realising her error, she would be thinking, well why does that not look right, the herd must be right so I will hop along to somewhere like BOM or sks with their multitude of half truths and cherry picked data to pick up some koolaid and drink liberally.
if the koolaid is strong enough, she will come out of it being annoyed only at the person/people that pointed out the error, and will be no less ignorant about the climate.
the start and end of the issue is the critical thinking which has been under sustained attack by many, and is in serious decline.
There are obviously valid scientific arguments about the truth or otherwise of the Global Warming question. If a theory that is making huge changes to the way we live (and die), you would think it would be absolutely worthy of a global conference devoted to scientific debate with opposing views presented.
That is what Lima should really be about.
Report warns of soaring risk of ‘mega-fires’ in B.C.
Firefighting won’t be enough to stop devastating fires; report calls for new emphasis on prevention
By Bethany Lindsay and Larry Pynn, Vancouver Sun December 4, 2014
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Report+warns+soaring+risk+mega+fires/10438378/story.html#ixzz3KyidzpxT
– – –
Says 4C warming by 2050, report was written in April.
Garymount , please tell me that you dont take this front page on the cover of the Sun stuff seriously. Besides we will not be around to see if it pans out. This story will be buried in the archives and long forgotten about by then. The predictions are getting further and further away in the future for a reason. Linear extrapolation is only a theory in the climate domain.
Here is my comment to a comment on that post:
– – –
Gary Mount · Simon Fraser University
Steve Brown It is provincial governments that are carbon taxing its citizens and not the federal government.
In 2 months it will be my 5 year anniversary of researching climate science full time. I know what the science says. My expert opinion; increasing CO2 is greening the planet, not causing global warming or climate change, and more CO2 is better.
– – –
So Mike, no I don’t believe a word of it, but I do take it seriously as an affront to our freedoms… etc.
Here is some goofyness!
The Mayor of my earthquake ruined city of Christchurch is lobbying for more land confiscations, (a number of suburbs were cleared out after the earthquakes as the land was deemed to be un-buildable-although strangely most were riverside suburbs and not all properties were damaged. (Agenda 21 in action I believe )).
Now she is getting paranoid about sea level rise.
And so she should be as at 2 meters the CBD will be awash at high tide! Damn and they had a chance to move Christchurch when the earthquakes largely flattened it! (joke)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/63768303/Christchurch-mayor-demands-sea-level-action
So reading carefully, you will notice that she feels the biggest problem will not be the confiscations, (the previous ones generally went without a hitch), but the possibility of legal action costing the council as it did in a similar case in another NZ city. I guess that city wasn’t inhabited by sheeple as Christchurch is.
My comment on the link points out how long it will be before a one meter rise will take effect – assuming that AGW and the melting of Greenland goes to plan.
All this leads to more certainty that Christchurch NZ is rapidly succumbing under the thrall of the UN under the IPCC and Agenda 21.
See my blog at http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Cheers
Roger
Roger – Maybe do some research on the New Orleans flooding experience. It sounds like a very familiar ‘takeover by the rich’ scenario.
Perhaps they want gran and gramps to opt for a Nembutal script a few decades earlier? … for love of Gaia … … well I suppose that’s one step-up from an Aztec pulling thousands of beating hearts out of the chest cavities for a Sun God … we are making progress.
With the solar minimum coming at us we will have to giant raise herds of
old people and force feed them large quantities of beans and sauerkraut
just to warm things up a bit.
probably the wildest claims about global warming were regarding the fish and squid etc
there are many here –
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
That AGW fraud has one beneficial side effect: “Global warming did serve a couple of useful purposes. The issue has been a litmus test for our political class. Any politician who has stated a belief in global warming is either a cynical opportunist or an easily deluded fool. In neither case should that politician ever be taken seriously again. No excuses can be accepted.” http://tinyurl.com/ptgrz34 & http://tinyurl.com/ot2hlp4
(I posted this on “Tips & Notes” earlier this week)
In BELGIUM, 11 local celebrities are planning to sue the government for not taking appropriate action against climate change.
The story is covered enthusiastically by the media, and on Tuesday morning Flemish state radio (!) was calling on the population to join the climate warriors (as they call themselves).
The celebrities say they are funded by “anonymous sponsors”. The government lawyers, of course, will be paid with tax money.
During the same broadcast on Flemish radio (VRT), one of the celebrities was confronted with a skeptic (Mr. Jan Jacobs if I remember well), who was not allowed to finish a single sentence, being interrupted all the time. When he finally raised his voice in an attempt to be heard, he was admonished (“you don’t have to shout”). The man was courageously trying to inject some science in the “debate”, but to no avail.
———–
In an Op-Ed on the blogsite of the same state broadcaster VRT (http://deredactie.be/permalink/1.2170779 ), an employee of the Flemish Green party states that “criticizing the climate activists is a form of denialism”. Actually, the word he uses is “negationism”, a Dutch word almost exclusively used in connection with Holocaust denialism. Mark how he extends his demonizing, not just to skeptics of global warming, but also to supporters who dare to criticize the methods of the activists.