One of the most pathetic things about climate alarmism is the fact that it seems the people who profess such views have no capacity to be ashamed of their own statements. For example, Brad Johnson, who is a paid spokesman for a shadowy outfit called “forecast the facts” has previously made outrageous statements trying to link tornado activity to the voting record of some southern states.
We’ve called him out on these claims before, but being paid to do it he does, he’s right back at it this week with an even more outrageous claim as seen below on his Twitter feed:
Johnson is a paid political advocate, his job is to scare up emotions with whatever statements he can muster so that it can be regurgitated by low information voters even though there’s not one speck of truth in anything he has ever said in this matter of severe weather events related to climate.
He is the worst kind of alarmist: paid to create lies, such as trying to link a blizzard to climate change.
Even the IPCC doesn’t buy into the climate to severe weather link as we have covered before:
This is consistent with what was reported last year in the IPCC SREX report ( IPCC Special Report on Extremes PDF)
From Chapter 4 of the IPCC SREX report:
- “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
- “The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
- “The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr adds in blog post some points from the IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 2 on extremes.
- “Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability”
- “There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
- “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
- “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”
- “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
- “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 due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
- “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
And says:
Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change — Zombie science — but I am declaring victory in this debate. Climate campaigners would do their movement a favor by getting themselves on the right side of the evidence.
There are numerous studies that show no linkage between tornado activity and climate change, and last month was the quietest Mmnth on record for US. Tornadoes since 1969.
Even Nature’s editorial two years ago was dashing alarmist hopes of linking extreme weather events to global warming saying:
Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.
Brad Johnson should be ashamed for pushing such lies, but when you’re paid to do so, I suppose it’s impossible to embrace such an emotion.
Brad Johnson’s goal is to be victimized, to become a martyr. That is why the leftists make the outlandish claims they make, the more outrageous the better.
Their whole goal is to provoke righteous indignation against their persecutors, that gives them power, money and control. It is the meme of the whole ‘environmental movement’, ‘civil rights movement’, ‘politics’, etc.
The techniques weakness is that it has to be taken seriously, it can’t stand any ridicule. Ridicule is also the techniques most potent weapon.
Brad Johnson has victimized himself. He has made himself ridiculous. He is a martyr to his own dementia.
He will start to catch on when he notices people get up and leave as he speaks. Perhaps he already notices this in his personal life, and resorts to the web to seek attention he lacks in the real world. He seeks “hits” on his “sites”, but that is a sort of pathetic contact with fellow humans, compared to real conversation and real relationships.
I think he needs a cold shoulder, for that is bitter medicine to one who craves attention. Save the ridicule for the people who quote him.
Typo alert: There are numerous studies that show no linkage between tornado activity and climate change, and last month was the quietest Mmnth on record for US. Tornadoes since 1969.
The emboldened should be “March” or “Month” depending on which is more accurate.
I doubt it would be “Month”, as January can have no tornadoes. By “March” the warm muggy air starts coming north, and there can be tremendous outbreaks.
The Gulf of Mexico is warmer than normal to the east, which makes the lack of tornadoes all the more interesting. You might expect warmer water to fuel more tornadoes, but south winds have been rare.
i once caught an article from the Ny times that quoted something along the lines of “climate change was making conservatives more racist.’Then of course there was the reporting on how Isis was created by man made climate change. The huff post has the mos the hilarious journalism on the subject. i used to be quite liberal but even then I could never consider such a rag with any journalistic integrity. there is no claim about clamte change they aren’t willing to publish on the alarmism side.
How about that AGW earthquake today in Ca.
Was the fracking in OK wot did it.
Frack me, that was a good one.
Not fracking but underground salt water disposal post fracking. However, even though Oklahoma earthquake rates have increased about 40 fold since 2009 compared to the last 30 years, the Oklahoma Geological Survey position is that there is low statistical correlation. So AGW is a good a guess as any.
http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pdf/OGS_POSITION_STATEMENT_2_18_14.pdf
Funny how few complaints I see about geologists’ models not being able to predict them.
Geologists’ models aren’t being used as support to try to fundamentally change society.
You will see complaints about correlation with laws being passed to allow fracking and increased earthquakes before any actual fracking starts.
deebodk,
The main function of a forward-looking AOGCM business-as-usual projection is an attempt to tell us something about what to expect if we don’t.
We can’t do a darn thing about preventing earthquakes, but I argue that it would fundamentally change society for the better if we could reliably predict days, or even hours, in advance where and when they’re going to occur, and how strong they’re expected to be.
Robert B,
Sure. I find that argument a bit annoying myself.
We can’t do a darn thing about preventing earthquakes, but I argue that it would fundamentally change society for the better if we could reliably predict days, or even hours, in advance where and when they’re going to occur, and how strong they’re expected to be.
And if you had predicted 2 dozen in a row that never materialized, would you still shout that the science is settled and that anyone who didn’t do as you say was some sort of idiot?
davidmhoffer,
Where my analogy breaks down is that AGW at its core is a continuous phenomenon with a subtle low frequency signal being masked by high frequency “noise”. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve explained to you that we’re not doing long term annual weather forecasts here.
Where my analogy breaks down is that AGW at its core is a continuous phenomenon with a subtle low frequency signal being masked by high frequency “noise”. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve explained to you that we’re not doing long term annual weather forecasts here.
1) Thank you for admitting that your analogy is completely inapplicable.
2) You failed to answer the question
davidmhoffer,
Thank you for putting words in my mouth which are not there.
You failed to ask a question: And if you had predicted 2 dozen in a row that never materialized, would you still shout that the science is settled and that anyone who didn’t do as you say was some sort of idiot?
I can’t read your mind and answer something you did not specify. I do know that I’m not still beating my wife, I never have, and don’t plan on doing it.
You failed to ask a question: And if you had predicted 2 dozen in a row that never materialized, would you still shout that the science is settled and that anyone who didn’t do as you say was some sort of idiot?
LOL. You’re evading answering the question by claiming I didn’t ask one while quoting the exact question that I asked. You’re not on your game tonight.
davidmhoffer,
Partially tired because it’s nearly bedtime, partially being tired of that particular game. Of course two dozen in a row missed predictions doesn’t inspire confidence, but a yes/no answer to your “question” is one I cannot answer and not be wrong. It’s a silly debate tactic we’ve all learned from watching too many politicians on television and I’m weary of it.
What’s this two dozen you’re talking about, anyway? Years of “no warming”? Atlantic hurricanes which haven’t happened? Number of species which haven’t gone extinct?
My view is that properly skeptical truth-seeking behaviour is not to ask such vague questions designed to trap an opponent. When I’m doing that, damn straight I’m not interested in learning anything from the other guy. Someone pulls it on me, it sends the same message — therefore my answers will tend to be non-substantive and seeking to manuver for an angle to counter-attack. Pretty standard playbook, not at all mysterious.
Brandon says,
The main function of a forward-looking AOGCM business-as-usual projection is an attempt to tell us something about what to expect if we don’t.”
and says, “Funny how few complaints I see about geologists’ models not being able to predict them.”
==========================
Brandon, the main function of a forward-looking AOGCM business-as-usual projections, is, in the view of many who have studied the IPCC. purely political. (Books have been written and suggested to you) A very short summary is that if your models all run way to warm according to observations, then you do not take the mean of those models as the basis of your forward looking projection of future harms. It is not logical. If you are shooting an arrow at a target, (target here is a symbol for observations) and 97% of your arrows all go to high, you adjust your aim, and then takes those arrows which hit your target as the basis for your “projections”
The IPCC scandals and “Gates” if you will, are extensive, and I do suggest you familiarize your self with them.
A general complaint about skeptics saying, ” all models are bad”, is simply another strawman, as no informed skeptics I know are saying that. So here, like the IPCC, I suggest your projections are missing the target.
What’s this two dozen you’re talking about, anyway?
Seriously? You’ve not only admitted your analogy breaks down, you can’t seem to remember what it was about. Anyone following this thread knows exactly what two dozen I was talking about.
No, I have not been following this thread. All analogies break down at some point, else they would not be analogies. Like models, they’re all wrong, but sometimes useful.
David A,
Once again you wander into a science discussion and start talking politics.
No, I have not been following this thread
Oddly, I thought you would at least be familiar with the things you yourself said in the thread. Apparently a bad assumption on my part. A clue as to how and why you operate though. Thanks.
davidmhoffer,
Oddly you are speaking in ambiguities again, which is a clue as to how you operate. Please quote my exact words and dispute them. Not only do I find nebulous hand-waving unhelpful, I consider persistently and repeatedly doing it after calls for specifics have been made to be highly dishonest.
Not only do I find nebulous hand-waving unhelpful, I consider persistently and repeatedly doing it after calls for specifics have been made to be highly dishonest.
Seriously? I cite your comment at:
Brandon Gates April 13, 2015 at 9:35 pm
In which you said (and i quote)
We can’t do a darn thing about preventing earthquakes, but I argue that it would fundamentally change society for the better if we could reliably predict days, or even hours, in advance where and when they’re going to occur, and how strong they’re expected to be.
To which I responded at:
davidmhoffer April 13, 2015 at 10:23 pm
In which I repeated your statement above and specifically asked:
And if you had predicted 2 dozen in a row that never materialized, would you still shout that the science is settled and that anyone who didn’t do as you say was some sort of idiot?
You then pretended that I had not asked a question, and when taken to task on this matter as it was patently false due to the fact that you in fact quoted the question you claimed I never asked, you then tried to claim that you didn’t know what the question was in reference to. After all that, calling me out for being dishonest is hilarious.
davidmhoffer,
I’m not stupid, David, and I’m getting weary of you dancing around the meaning you’re obviously hinting at. Please answer the question you are clearly raising: what failed AGW predictions do you cite as fatal failures of the theory?
I’m not stupid, David, and I’m getting weary of you dancing around the meaning you’re obviously hinting at.
You’re getting weary?:
o I asked you a simple question
o You claimed I hadn’t asked one (while quoting it!)
o You then claimed you didn’t know what it was in reference to
o I then demonstrated that you knew very well what it was in reference to
o You now claim you’re getting weary of me dancing around the point you think I am making
My question hasn’t changed, your excuses are BS, and I’m done with this thread because the one weary of all the dancing is me.
davidmhoffer,
I answered your question, what, two posts ago?: Of course two dozen in a row missed predictions doesn’t inspire confidence, but a yes/no answer to your “question” is one I cannot answer and not be wrong.
Now are you really talking about earthquake predictions, or something else. This is not the first time I have asked you that.
“Fossil Fueled Tornado”
————
Apatosaurus-nado!
Like most leftists, they truly believe that the “truth” is whatever advances their agenda.
Ralph Nader: unsave at any speed.
A big gain for the corvette, Americas automotive industrie – and retaining sober reaction.
the IPCC’s supercomputers too are unsave at any speed.
Where’s IPCC’s Nader, where the sober reaction?
( Nader argued polemically, confirmed. Freedom of speech. )
Hans
It was the “Corvair” that was Nader’s target, not the “Corvette”, huge difference.
was that a pull-start, kick-start, or an electric-start tornado?
Here is my question…. what if this tornado [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri-State_Tornado ], which occurred 90 years ago, struck today? Any bets it would be linked to AGW faster the winds it produces. Tornadoes happen, and they have been happening since well before recorded history.