Ross McKitrick: This scientist proved climate change isn’t causing extreme weather — so politicians attacked

And so, many scientists who have the facts and know the truth remain silent

Hurricanes have not been proven to be more frequent or more dangerous than in the past.NOAA / AFP / Getty Images
Hurricanes have not been proven to be more frequent or more dangerous than in the past. NOAA 

From The Financial Post

Special to Financial Post
Special to Financial Post

June 7, 2019
6:28 AM EDT

Last Updated
June 7, 2019
6:28 AM EDT

By Ross McKitrick

This week in Vancouver, Prime Minister Trudeau said the federal carbon tax, a key pillar in his government’s climate policy, will help protect Canadians from extreme weather. “Extreme weather events are extraordinarily expensive for Canadians, our communities and our economy,” he said, citing the recent tornadoes in Ottawa and wildfires in Western Canada. “That’s why we need to act.”

While members of the media may nod along to such claims, the evidence paints a different story. Roger Pielke Jr. is a scientist at University of Colorado in Boulder who, up until a few years ago, did world-leading research on climate change and extreme weather. He found convincing evidence that climate change was not leading to higher rates of weather-related damages worldwide, once you correct for increasing population and wealth. He also helped convene major academic panels to survey the evidence and communicate the near-unanimous scientific consensus on this topic to policymakers. For his efforts, Pielke was subjected to a vicious, well-funded smear campaign backed by, among others, the Obama White House and leading Democratic congressmen, culminating in his decision in 2015 to quit the field.

A year ago, Pielke told the story to an audience at the University of Minnesota. His presentation was recently circulated on Twitter. With so much misinformation nowadays about supposed climate emergencies, it’s worth reviewing carefully.

Pielke’s public presentation begins with a recounting of his rise and fall in the field. As a young researcher in tropical storms and climate-related damages, he reached the pinnacle of the academic community and helped organize the so-called Hohenkammer Consensus Statement, named after the German town where 32 of the leading scientists in the field gathered in 2006 to sort out the evidence. They concluded that trends toward rising climate damages were mainly due to increased population and economic activity in the path of storms, that it was not currently possible to determine the portion of damages attributable to greenhouse gases, and that they didn’t expect that situation to change in the near future.

Shortly thereafter, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 2007 report, largely agreeing with the Hohenkammer Consensus, while cherry-picking one unpublished study (and highlighting it in the Summary for Policymakers) that suggested a link between greenhouse gases and storm-related damages. But the author of that study — who just happened to be the same IPCC lead author who injected it into the report — later admitted his claim was incorrect, and when the study was finally published, denied the connection.

In 2012, the IPCC Special Report on Extreme Weather came out and echoed the Hohenkammer Consensus, concluding that once you adjust for population growth and economic changes, there is no statistical connection between climate change and measures of weather-related damages. In 2013 Pielke testified to the United States Congress and relayed the IPCC findings. Shortly thereafter, Obama’s science advisor John Holdren accused him of misleading Congress and launched a lengthy but ill-informed attack on Pielke, which prompted congressional Democrats to open an investigation into Pielke’s sources of funding (which quickly fizzled amid benign conclusions). Meanwhile heavily funded left-wing groups succeeded in getting him fired from a popular internet news platform. In 2015 Pielke quit the climate field.

So where did the science end up?

In the second half of his talk, Pielke reviews the science as found in the most recent (2013) IPCC Assessment Report, the 2018 U.S. National Climate Assessment, and the most up-to-date scientific data and literature. Nothing substantial has changed.

Globally there’s no clear evidence of trends and patterns in extreme events such as droughts, hurricanes and floods. Some regions experience more, some less and some no trend. Limitations of data and inconsistencies in patterns prevent confident claims about global trends one way or another. There’s no trend in U.S. hurricane landfall frequency or intensity. If anything, the past 50 years has been relatively quiet. There’s no trend in hurricane-related flooding in the U.S. Nor is there evidence of an increase in floods globally. Since 1965, more parts of the U.S. have seen a decrease in flooding than have seen an increase. And from 1940 to today, flood damage as a percentage of GDP has fallen to less than 0.05 per cent per year from about 0.2 per cent.

Read the full story here.


5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 8, 2019 2:07 am

“This scientist proved climate change isn’t causing extreme weather”

I don’t think that’s the right way to put it. Maybe they mean that he looked at the data and did not find evidence that climate change is causing extreme weather.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
June 8, 2019 3:46 am

There is NO increase in extreme weather.

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
June 8, 2019 5:25 am

You probably should have added “If there is NO increase in extreme weather” that a nonexistent occurance CANNOT have a cause.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
June 8, 2019 3:50 am

Indeed, I have seen no proof.
did he publish the scientific proof?
did he give wuwt any unpublished data as proof?

Reply to  ghalfrunt
June 8, 2019 5:43 am

“did he give wuwt any unpublished data as proof?”

This is a re-post of an article by Ross McKitrick appearing in the Financial Post; “Ross McKitrick: This scientist proved climate change isn’t causing extreme weather — so politicians attacked.” As such it’s about the political attacks on scientist Roger Pielke, Jr., and the subsequent results. Pileke’s twitter thread (linked) was quite enlightening.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
June 8, 2019 6:35 am

The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change. Roger Pielke Jr. 2014
The book is based on, and contains, extensive observational data.

Please read the book and report back on the facts with which you disagree and the reasons for that disagreement.

Reply to  George Daddis
June 8, 2019 10:32 am


You nailed it. Dr Pielke, Jr clearly cites all his references.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
June 8, 2019 8:20 am

More upside down false science; i.e. reverse the burden of proof so that real scientists must prove a nonexistent relationship.
Truly, a bizarre utterly unscientific demand.

The burden of proof lies with those who claim storms are caused by “climate change”.

N.B., “Climate change” is a propaganda replacement term; since previous terms, e.g., “global warming”, CAGW and ‘increasing CO₂ atmospheric levels cause global warming’ failed to frighten people.

Note that the recurrent failure of alarmist predictions has resulted in alarmists now claim opposite effects to their previous claims.
e.g. Perma droughts morphs into extreme rainfall,
Snow will be but a memory morphs into CO₂ causes increased snowfall,
Winters will no longer be cold morphs into extreme cold is caused by increased CO₂,
etc. etc.

Yes, I used the original claim where alarmists insist that increased CO₂ brings doom to the Earth, since that is still the basis behind the CYA term “climate change”.

Let us know when alarmist scientists actually prove an extreme storm relationship to increasing CO₂.

Reply to  ATheoK
June 8, 2019 8:51 am

I think what you are trying to say is that ALL weather is caused by climate change, and is obvious proof that we are all going to die. Hot, cold, wet, dry, frogs, fish, blood or boiling oceans, it’s ALL because of CO2. Of course.

Quite clever, really.

Reply to  ATheoK
June 8, 2019 2:01 pm

… reverse the burden of proof so that real scientists must prove a nonexistent relationship.

I was going to quote, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” I found that it was penned by Carl Sagan. I also found that he’s right up there with Paul Erlich for making goofy predictions. Kuwaiti oil fires causing nuclear winter for instance. These people are wrong more than they are right, but folks don’t seem to notice. So, we have the spectacle of Roger Pielke Jr. being de-platformed for being right while failed prognosticators are celebrated. If that’s not corruption, I don’t know what is.

Reply to  commieBob
June 8, 2019 7:39 pm

Ironically, it was Sagan who warned against what is happening now, with scientists like Dr. Pielke being treated the way he was. He encouraged vigorous debate. He’s bound to be spinning in his grave because of what has happened since he died.

Reply to  commieBob
June 9, 2019 12:33 pm

“Wrong more than they have been right”??? When have they been right?

Reply to  commieBob
June 9, 2019 1:57 pm

F.LEGHORN June 9, 2019 at 12:33 pm

… When have they been right?

Two answers:
1 – Even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut.
2 – About the same as predictions generated by a dart-throwing chimp.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
June 8, 2019 10:00 am

Yep here’s the lowdown-
But you can think of it as the Hohenkammer Consensus Statement and that should be quite enough for you to be a true believer.

Pat Frank
Reply to  observa
June 8, 2019 10:53 am

The brochure starts off at the very beginning with a scientific falsehood:

1. Climate change is real, and has a significant human component related to
greenhouse gases

The only way to credit that statement is to assert the accuracy of climate models. They haven’t got any such accuracy.

Climate models are completely unreliable. They can’t resolve the effect of the tiny change in forcing that is due to CO2 emissions. They can’t predict the climate 1 year out.

Models tuned with known climate bounds don’t hindcast climate physics even when they reproduce known past observables.

Roger jr.’s skeptical views of weather and economics begin from his credulous acceptance of climate models.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
June 8, 2019 1:54 pm

Ross McKitrick did not write the headline.

Nowhere in the article are the words ‘proof’ or ‘proved’ used.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
June 8, 2019 2:22 pm

It’s awful hard to see things that you refuse to see.

Kone Wone
Reply to  MarkW
June 8, 2019 4:23 pm

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Chaamjamal
June 8, 2019 6:24 am

In science absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Which is why the result statement should never contain the word “proof”. People who use research to bolster their premise often turn research that fails to reject the null hypothesis into a statement that contains the verboten word. Research does not and never should treat results like a mathematical proof.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pamela Gray
June 8, 2019 10:43 am

I’ve finally realized, Pamela, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence of evidence.

No hole is left for the usual squirmy ‘well, it may be true anyway‘ to creep back in.

Reply to  Pat Frank
June 9, 2019 6:20 am

One can gain confidence in the null when it fails be to be rejected quite ‘easily’ with enough statistical power to theoretically detect the putative effect. If a theorized effect is not found, time and time again, then absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, because absence yields evidence of absence.

Not to mention there are bayesian methods through which the probability of the null being true is made explicit.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
June 8, 2019 7:01 am

Ever wonder why extremists attack honest scientists who oppose global warming and climate change hysteria? Ever wonder why extremists refuse to debate the science?

It is because global warming and climate change alarmism was never about the science – it was always a smokescreen for the political objectives of the extreme left.

The book “1984”, written by George Orwell in 1949, foresaw a time “when most of the world population have become victims of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and public manipulation”(wiki).

Well here is the REAL “1984”, an interview that year with ex-KGB officer and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov, who describes the slow, long-term “ideological subversion” of Western societies. Jump to 1:07:30 for Bezmenov’s discussion of ideological subversion. It’s all about manipulating the “Useful Idiots” – the leftists in the West.

One commenter on the video wrote: “this is f***ing crazy, almost everything predicted by this guy is already happening.”


As I wrote recently:
“The Green movement is really a smokescreen for the old Marxists – and they are the great killers of our age.” – March 11, 2019

Best, Allan


“Hypothesis: Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age”
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng.

“Science’s Untold Scandal: The Lockstep March of Professional Societies to Promote the Climate Change Scare”
by Tom Harris And Dr. Jay Lehr

Many more videos of Yuri Bezmenov

Reply to  Chaamjamal
June 8, 2019 9:56 am

Maybe they mean that he looked at the data and did not find evidence that climate change is causing extreme weather.

No, they mean that he found evidence that extreme weather was decreasing. Read the article.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
June 8, 2019 10:17 am

It is indeed strange, Chaamjamal, as is all ‘climate change.’

Climate is the generalized weather of an area or region.

Climate change would then be a change in the generalized weather of an area or region.

Ipso facto, “This scientist proved climate change isn’t causing extreme weather” is bass ackwards stupid. Extreme weather might change the climate. More likely, it wouldn’t. I.e., an area being subject to severe storms would still be subject to severe storms if there were more of them. Or less of them.

‘Climate change’ as used today is completely absurd. Undefined. People who use the term depend on their audience to fabricate a meaning for it. It can mean anything they want it to.

On this planet, the Sahel is the ONLY place where climate might be changing. All other declarations of ‘climate change’ are silly. Stupid silly. Yet even the skepticverse accepts use of the term.

Stop it. Make people who use it provide a definition. Demand a definition.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
June 8, 2019 2:23 pm

If there is no increase in extreme weather, then by definition, increasing CO2 didn’t cause it.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
June 9, 2019 1:18 am

The hypothesis is that climate change is causing an increase in extreme weather.

The null hypothesis is that climate change is NOT causing an increase in extreme weather.

The precautionary principle is that computer models say there SHOULD be an increase in extreme weather, and therefore we should spend trillions trying to avert this extreme weather which nobody has yet experienced, but will surely happen next month, or next year, or whenever the tipping point occurs.

Reply to  Phil
June 10, 2019 2:47 pm

You said, “Climate change.”

What do you mean by it? Define it.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
June 9, 2019 6:03 am

Ah. The ol’ “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” nonsense.

The null hypothesis can in fact gain enough confidence to be accepted as true.

I could well be mistaken, but a meta-analysis has probably already been done, which would have provided the reader with enough evidence to accept the null hypothesis.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
June 9, 2019 1:31 pm

Would you prefer “disproved that an increase in extreme weather events is caused by global warming”?

Howard Dewhirst
June 8, 2019 2:46 am

Unfair to say ‘scientists who know the truth stay silent’ when you know how impossible it is to get ‘peer reviewed’ status unless you follow the IPCC guidelines. I have been campaigning for three years but have got nowhere other than blogs where readers think like I do. To get to the undecided is as good as impossible as ‘they’ have a strangle hold on all open media. When did BBC last issue a balanced review or a critical letter?

John V. Wright
Reply to  Howard Dewhirst
June 8, 2019 3:31 am

Howard, I don’t know if you are aware but it is the BBC’s official editorial stance NOT to present balanced editorial coverage of global warming issues. Amazing but true. And this policy has been in place for many years. And we are talking about the UK’s state broadcaster here. With the exception of some excellent foreign correspondents such as Jeremy Bowen the BBC’s news and current affairs programming is a relentless onslaught of leftist propaganda and fact-avoiding content. BBC journalism is, sadly, a laughing stock. The reason they are so anti-Farage is that if the Brexit Party were to come into power they would drop the TV license fee (which everyone with a TV HAS to pay) and so defund the BBC. As ever, it’s all about the money…

Reply to  John V. Wright
June 8, 2019 6:21 am

From ‘false balance’ to ‘fake news’.

Reply to  John V. Wright
June 8, 2019 8:59 am

There you go, you should not have a “State Broadcaster.”

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Michael Moon
June 8, 2019 12:57 pm

Let Goebbel’s Ministry of Information and Tokyo Rose be a lesson to the wise.

Reply to  Howard Dewhirst
June 8, 2019 4:03 am

This is the problem. Warmists don’t even react. And why should they? Major media has accepted our knowledge as heresy to be excluded lest it influence the masses. We know the issue is not the evidence. We are on the wrong side from the world government forces. It is like the exclusion of any views other than the church in the middle ages. So long as the hardships are not great the masses will go along with it. They may even believe their sacrifices have improved the weather.

Reply to  Ulick Stafford
June 8, 2019 5:30 am

“They may even believe their sacrifices have improved the weather.”

If they can be talked into believing the original lie that human sacrifice (yes, I meant to word it that way) can change the weather, there’s no problem getting them to believe another lie and another and another….Of course they will believe. They must.

June 8, 2019 2:53 am
June 8, 2019 2:54 am

Quel surprise….

June 8, 2019 3:06 am

I wish this particular blog sourced these claims. I told my son that I didn’t think we were experiencing any more extreme storms and he told me that wasn’t true. It would be nice to source the IPCC

Reply to  Derg
June 8, 2019 6:26 am

Your son didn’t read the ARs, but some SPM after media spin.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Derg
June 8, 2019 6:42 am

It is easy to find that information. Type in the word “index” or “data” regarding storms. Have your son do the leg work.

Reply to  Derg
June 8, 2019 6:46 am

Buried deep inside IPCC SR5 they give the details.

Search for floods, droughts, cyclones. Wildfires are not there.

There is an article on wildfires in Science Magazine –

Reply to  Derg
June 8, 2019 10:54 am

The IPCC reports are on line, but you already are at the web site with the data at your fingertips. Bottom of the masthead you’ll see all sorts of resources including one called Reference Pages. Data from a lot places organized by topic…. including extreme weather:

Louis J Hooffstetter
Reply to  Derg
June 8, 2019 6:15 pm

Check out Tony Heller routinely presents historical weather data including temperature data, storms, ice conditions, etc. A quick search of Tony’s posts should provide all of the historical data necessary to prove your point to your son.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
June 8, 2019 3:14 am

Gee, seems that Obama didn’t tolerate any opinions that diverged from his own. Anyone he disagreed with, he turned the instruments of the state on them as well as his state controlled media.

I’m trying to think if there has been any historic world leaders who had similar traits.

Nope, can’t come up with any. But I don’t read much history.

Dave Row
Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
June 8, 2019 4:08 am

I point you to Stalin

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
June 8, 2019 4:27 am

Let’s see…Mao, Nikita, Pol, Adolph and of course the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
June 8, 2019 4:42 am

I think maybe you needed the ‘sarc’ tag?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Susan
June 8, 2019 6:23 am

They could use this: – – winking smiley face – –'s_law

Reply to  Susan
June 8, 2019 9:28 am

Apparently. How droll.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
June 8, 2019 1:22 pm

And Krudd, don’t forget Obama’s hero, Lt. Col. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Obama fully believed in and tried to follow Chavez’s tactics and would have taken us down the same drain if he could have wrangled another term. We’re just lucky Chavez was early enough and Venezuela crashed as fast as it did or we could now be in the same boat.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  Joe Crawford
June 8, 2019 8:44 pm

Mate, you’ve got a complete Chavezite sleeper in your midst. Oz bestowed on the USA none other than Juliar Gillard, former PM, proven crypto-communist and confirmed kleptocrat.

When Gillo’s reign was turning sour, to get her out and cling to power, her party teammates used the advantages of being of government to make a grant of absolute tens of millions of taxpayer $AUD to…The Clinton Foundation.

Gillo then gracefully resigned and took up a cushy job with…The Clinton Foundation.

She’s still there, hob nobbing it with Al Gore, Hilary, the Obama’s, etc and has tens of millions of $$$ of Aussie taxpayers money to play with to interfere in your democracy.

June 8, 2019 3:26 am

The empirical evidence is overwhelming that there is NO correlation between: CO2 levels and catastrophic warming, nor between the 0.85C of beneficial warming recovery we’ve enjoyed since 1850 and extreme weather incidence/severity trends.

The only direct cause and effect relationship that can be proven between extreme weather claims and rising CO2 levels is that Leftists will lie their buns off about anything in order to achieve nefarious ends and rob taxpayers.

John MacDonald
June 8, 2019 3:40 am

I saw latest Scientiific American a news shelf last night. Includes article claiming storms, etc getting stronger.

Reply to  John MacDonald
June 8, 2019 2:00 pm

I’m not sure what you were trying to say, but the rest of us still lament the decline and fall of a once great magazine.

Reply to  Ric Werme
June 9, 2019 4:34 am

Exactly right, it was a great magazine once and I had a subscription. However it became so leftist and climate-deranged over the years that I had to let the subscription lapse. I couldn’t justify paying for it anymore.

Dudley Horscroft
June 8, 2019 3:41 am

Agreed. Showing there is no evidence is not the same as “proving”. But the more important claim is that if you take the cost of extreme events in nominal terms, you end up with a massive increase in cost of those events. But this is just due to inflation.

Read a few historical novels and marvel at the small payments given to domestic staff in the early 1900s or the Regency period. When the annual cost of a skilled domestic servant was 50
GBP per year, a disaster costing GBP100 000 meant it was equivalent to the annual wages of 2000 domestic servants. The comparable cost today would be more like GBP60M. But the disaster would be no worse. (If my arithmetic is skew whiff, sorry, but the general sense is correct.)

June 8, 2019 3:44 am

Trudeau lies, like all globalists.

June 8, 2019 4:12 am

This week in Vancouver, Prime Minister Trudeau said the federal carbon tax, a key pillar in his government’s climate policy, will help protect Canadians from extreme weather. “Extreme weather events are extraordinarily expensive for Canadians, our communities and our economy,” he said, citing the recent tornadoes in Ottawa and wildfires in Western Canada. “That’s why we need to act.”
Is there no end to this idiocy? – send us your money (correction – we’ll take it from you compulsorily), and we’ll stop all this nasty weather – droughts, hurricanes, heavy rain – oh yes, birds will twitter and sing and life will be beautiful………
I see a lot of mathematical arguments, reference to gas laws and so forth on websites such as this this. Nowhere do we see CLIMATE discussed in detail. Are there actually any regions on Earth where the climate has actually changed to any extent? Where are the figures and descriptions to support this?
As I’ve posted before, I’m 70 years old, and live in the UK. Subjectively, the climate hasn’t changed over all those years – the weather is as variable as ever – warmer winters, colder winters, the occasional hot summer (1959, 1975, 1976, and 2018) – and life goes on, despite all the CO2 horror stories.
One meteorology book I’ve read (Stirling, R: The Weather of Britain) mentioned that on the coldest winter days, freezing temperatures can extend up to the stratosphere – if correct (and I have no reason to doubt this observation), then so much for the alleged dangers of CO2.
Temperatures don’t define climate – I suggest that it’s time to discuss some real-world observations from local weather stations around the world. Here for example is a Met Office link to a weather station not far from where I live. It’s been operational since 1959:
So I ask: where are the changes of any significance during the last 60 years?
There’s also the matter of the message in this header article – ‘Globally there’s no clear evidence of trends and patterns in extreme events such as droughts, hurricanes and floods. Some regions experience more, some less and some no trend. Limitations of data and inconsistencies in patterns prevent confident claims about global trends one way or another. There’s no trend in U.S. hurricane landfall frequency or intensity. If anything, the past 50 years has been relatively quiet. There’s no trend in hurricane-related flooding in the U.S. Nor is there evidence of an increase in floods globally. Since 1965, more parts of the U.S. have seen a decrease in flooding than have seen an increase. And from 1940 to today, flood damage as a percentage of GDP has fallen to less than 0.05 per cent per year from about 0.2 per cent.’
So why are the politicians sticking to their nonsensical pronouncements?

Reply to  Carbon500
June 8, 2019 6:23 am

There has been a tremendous change in the climate around the Aral Sea in the former Soviet Union. Summer temperature highs have risen from the 90’s F to 140F. I am sure there are other changes.

This is human-caused all right, not by trace gases, but by cotton farming lowering the water table to such an extent that the former fourth-largest inland sea has almost vanished. Obviously, this is unsustainable, and will stop soon one way or another. But it may take a hundred years of more to repair the damage.

This is associated with the Communist era. This site frequently advocates for Free Enterprise (I hate the vague word “Capitalism”) and against socialism, because of their effects on the ecosystem.

Reply to  ladylifegrows
June 9, 2019 12:41 am

Ladylifegrows: I was surprised by the figures you give for the Aral Sea area summer temperature highs. That’s quite a jump. Where did you get these from? I’ve had a quick look at some internet figures, and the average highest temperatures remain at just over or below 90F over the years. As to the maximum highs, I haven’t as yet looked for historical data on these.
Despite claimed temperature changes, has the climate itself actually changed as defined by the Koppen classification, I wonder?

Colin Spencer
Reply to  Carbon500
June 10, 2019 3:52 pm

A study of ‘extreme weather events’ in the Amazon would be interesting if you want to connect higher carbon dioxide levels to climate change. In the Amazon rain forest, carbon dioxide levels commonly exceed 800 ppm – around double the estimated global average of 400 ppm. Looks like a very healthy environment to me.

George Davidson
Reply to  Carbon500
June 13, 2019 7:37 pm

When Trudeau was quoted in the paper that floods were caused by climate change that was the day I knew he was a fool. The flood in Montreal was caused by people building on an old lake bottom protected by a dike that was damaged in the 2017 flood and never repaired properly. Building on flood plains is never a good idea. It was also caused by poor dam management. The dam operators never lowered the upper lakes low enough so they could take the spring run off that came all at once. It was a cold snowy winter in Ontario. Opposite to global warming.

old white guy
June 8, 2019 4:40 am

Using Trudeau’s logic or lack thereof, taxes should prevent cancer, fires, floods, almost all natural calamities, except bad government.

Reply to  old white guy
June 8, 2019 2:15 pm

Awêska (Cree meaning ‘Holy Crap!’), I’ve got a genuine aboriginal name for Trudeau Jr. … His should henceforth be called ‘Dances with Unicorns’.

Apologies to Kevin Costner.

June 8, 2019 4:57 am

The hurricane “Idaï” in last March left the city of Beira (Mozambique) almost 90% destroyed with tens of dead people.
If just found that this town, now 450000 inhabitants was a small village of 7000 people only before WWI.
Let’s imagine the causalties this same hurricane would have caused one century ago in that same area. The newspapers, so far as they would have been aware of it (no internet, no telephone nor telegraph in that region) certainly had more important news to be related in that times.

June 8, 2019 5:31 am

bloomberg turned his most recent commencement address into a political rally solely based on how climate change was killing the world and increasing violent weather. Amazed how many in the audience believed it. These people (the bloombergs and other “high priests”) are truly disgusting, but I can only feel pitty for their acolytes.

John F. Hultquist
June 8, 2019 6:24 am

Thanks for this one.

June 8, 2019 6:37 am

Leftist fraudster at work :
“Give me your watch and I will tell you the time.”

Climate scam equivalent :
“Give me more money today and I will solve the non existent problem I created for you with the taxes you payed yesterday.”

Pamela Gray
June 8, 2019 6:38 am

Climate research is not the only area that changes at a snail’s pace or paradoxically changes with lightning speed. Educational practice at all levels switches band wagons as often as a human changes underwear, yet can also stay stuck in the mud till the practice dies of old age. And don’t even get me started on the breathless chase for grant money as one source dries up and one must switch to the other side just to get funding. No wonder sensible professionals quit or get fired.

A case in point, if someone dares to drive student improvement such that student numbers in special ed programs fall, be prepared to get fired. For every student taken off special education caseloads, the district loses money.

So it seems to me that climate research is all about the money game. And if you don’t want to play that game, you might as well kiss your professional butt goodby. I am now, at the end of this school year, a retired special education teacher. I didn’t play the game “right”.

Ron Long
June 8, 2019 6:41 am

I am now in Reno, Nevada, where the view of the Sierra Nevada Mountains is spectacular, due to the snow. Remember California Governor Moonbeam Brown said “get used to droughts because climate change makes this the new normal”? Now there is 210% of normal snowpack, California reservoirs are nearly full, and the ex-Gov (both of them, come to think of it) looks like a failed fortune teller. Kudos to Prof. Pielke, and I urge him to hang in there.

Joel O'Bryan
June 8, 2019 7:05 am

A quote from Ross’s article (not in this truncated version here):

“The continual claim of such a link [extreme weather and climate change] is misinformation employed for political and rhetorical purposes. Powerful people get away with it because so few people know what the numbers show. “

The GreenSlime depends on manipulative people like John Holdren in powerful positions and a compliant media to do their Dirty Work. Now we’ve got Climate Change disinformation spewing idiots like WaGov Inslee and Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders who want to be US President. And Joe Biden is getting feeble-minded, which a state that makes them at risk to be manipulated by people close them, where in their younger days they were clear headed and independent. Make no mistake these climate hustlers are well-financed, and smart, and “ethics” is the weapon they use against the other side while trying to claim the moral high ground and ignoring it for themselves. Bloomberg, Tom Steyer are funneling hundreds of millions of dollar$ in PAC attack ads and media campaigns to support their favored politicians. And they have an army of useful idiots supporting them as foot soldiers.

As far as “so few people know what the numbers show”, that’s why websites like WUWT and Anthony’s work and others is so essential. If the Left gains controls of this country, look for them to come after free speech under the guise of “fake news” or “hate speech.”

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
June 8, 2019 3:07 pm

“The GreenSlime depends on manipulative people like John Holdren …”

Boy… that sure don’t say much for Holdren’s intellectual capabilities. :<)

June 8, 2019 8:46 am

Interesting to read his whole presentation…..he starts with his voting record…Anderson, Jesse Jackson, Clinton, Nader, Kerry, Obama, Clinton. Just shows that not everyone one the left is scientifically ignorant, but that being on the left will not save you from the lefties who are (or at least in a case such as Holdren and many others, scientifically corrupt.)

June 8, 2019 9:11 am
Reply to  TomRude
June 8, 2019 11:41 am

I’d never heard of the Canadian “Frontier Centre,” but if you want to learn about the dishonesty and failure to comply with ethical standards of Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Ray Bradley & Malcolm Hughes, when they created the fraudulent “hockey stick” graph for the 1999 WMO Climate Report cover, which spliced in measurement data in place of proxy data, to “hide the decline” in embarrassingly wrong proxy temperatures at a time when real temperatures were known to have increased, here’s the rundown:

Reply to  Dave Burton
June 9, 2019 3:17 am

A good link; thanks!

June 8, 2019 11:51 am

Wow, how did I miss THAT!

EVERYONE: If you haven’t seen Dr. Roger Pielke Jr’s 2018 tweetstorm, you need to read it!

Here’s the direct “tweetstorm” link, to the first of over five dozen tweets:
Be sure to click on “35 more replies” after slide #34, and on “5 more replies” after slide #64.

Here’s the ThreadReaderApp “unrolled” version of the thread:

Here’s a pdf of the latter:

Here’s the video linked from slide #27, with Dr. Pielke’s (excellent!) congressional testimony:

June 8, 2019 12:07 pm

Extreme weather- where-

A quick snapshot for 2019-

Nigeria-” Farmers Eye Bumper Harvest in 2019 – THISDAYLIVE”

Sri Lanka to get bumper rice harvest in Maha 2019 | Economynext A Bumper Summer Harvest – The Landing Search domain Mar 20, 2019 · As bumper harvest nears, Argentina’s soy farmers stall deals waiting for trade war’s end …

T Russia expects bumper wheat harvest – Xinhua | Bumper harvest for Central Australian date farm – FreshPlaza State set for bumper wheat harvest – The Tribune…bumper…harvest/745838.html

China secures another year of bumper harvest – 15 Dec 2018 – May 30, 2019 … China secures another year of bumper harvest .

Opinion | Bumper harvest amid global supply glut sees US grain … › Business › Commodities Bumper harvest amid global supply glut sees US grain warehouses run out of space. … 12 May 2019

Pop Piasa
June 8, 2019 1:08 pm

“This week in Vancouver, Prime Minister Trudeau said the federal carbon tax, a key pillar in his government’s climate policy, will help protect Canadians from extreme weather.”

He also stated with equal scientific prowess that sacrifices of our firstborn sons might me a viable alternative to appease the climate God CO2 and return the weather to what it was “in the good old days”.

(Bold mine)

June 8, 2019 1:53 pm

How the hell did Pielke get drummed out of Climate Science?

If his well earned bona fides aren’t protection enough, then the Climate War is nearly lost. Science has been corrupted beyond reparation.

No honest Scientist is safe if the Alarmunists can unilaterally dispose of them…or their publications.

Where are the powerful Republicans that should have been able to pull Pielke’s feet out of the fire? We need him.

Pielke’s reports showing no increases in damaging weather WAS SUPPORTED IN THE IPCC SCIENCE REPORT!! NOAA’s data supports him!!

If the truth and open debate have no power any more in this country (because one side refuses to participate – while the propaganda machine continues to lie) then it’s getting close to the time to circle the wagons…and fight dirty.

A Trump reelection will give us a few more years…unless the (apparently) superpowerful swamp machine can take him down or eliminate him. Hopefully enough time for some climate cooling to occur. Else this hoax could take down this country…and that won’t happen without some really ugly conflict.

It’s hard to overstate how serious this could get.

June 8, 2019 2:45 pm

I would imagine being at sea to be a dangerous occupation in regard to extreme weather-

“Shipping Losses Declines by 65%”

“Shipping losses declined by a record level of more than 50% year-on-year from 98 in 2017, driven by a significant fall in hotspots around the world and weather-related losses halving after a quieter year of hurricane and typhoon activity. The 2018 loss year is exceptional compared with the rolling 10-year loss average of 104 (down by 55%)”

June 8, 2019 4:29 pm

Its a very dirty business out there in the CC world. Big business is in it
too. If governments are stupid enough to offer large chunks of money to
those organizations , including utilities, who pay lip service to Green
thinking, why should they refuse it.

I say yet again we must start at CO2, and its properties, then move forward
to what the Global warming to CC mob have done with it.

Its still the key card in the whole rotten “”House of Cards””.


June 8, 2019 9:24 pm

They keep saying “Climate Change”…. That is not the right term. The issue is whether the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming is correct or not. Not climate change. Climate change is normal. The climate changed before humans were upon the planet and it will continue to have changes while we are here and after we are gone.

Increased resolution of Ice Cores showed that the original premise of the hypothesis of AGW was wrong when it became apparent that CO2 in the Ice Cores were showing increasing temperatures before increases in CO2. AGW hypothesis falsified.

The failure to find a “Hot Spot” in the Tropical Troposphere which was to show that extra Anthropogenic CO2 was causing feedbacks in Water Vapor. This was modeled by “Climate Scientists” and they failed to find their own prediction on water vapour feedback. AGW hypothesis falsified.

The hiatus in warming. Despite a 12 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 over twenty years there has been no corresponding rise in global average temperatures as measured by the Satellite record. AGW hypothesis falsified.

… and then there is the absolute debacle of the thermometer surface temperature record which has brought the climate science community into disrepute….. The thermometer record is an utter dogs breakfast of adjustments, bias and political interference.

The hypothesis of AGW has been falsified many times, but the politics of AGW refuses to die.

Phil Salmon
June 9, 2019 9:21 am

And on it goes. There’s no trend in U.S. tornado damage (in fact, 2012 to 2017 was below average). There’s no trend in global droughts. Cold snaps in the U.S. are down but, unexpectedly, so are heatwaves.

It is plausible that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will increase climate stability, by a GAIA type mechanism in which plants stabilise local – and possibly wider – climate to their own advantage.

Phil Salmon
Reply to  Phil Salmon
June 10, 2019 2:57 pm

Thus in cold periods, low CO2 weakens the plant biosphere resulting in greater climate instability.
Thus the glacial-interglacial flicker during transitions to global deep glaciation (i.e. now) and huge instability during glacial intervals – DO events (microinterglacials), etc.

Plants bring the hydrological cycle into land interiors which stabilises climate.
Glacial periods become arid and unstable.

June 10, 2019 12:55 am

Howard June 8 at 2:46, the reason that the BBC reports Climate Change in such an unbalance way is to be found in the BBC Trust, June 2007 document which was, with no irony intended, was titled “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel – Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century” which may be found at Here is an extract:
” Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.
Jana Bennett, Director of Television, argued at the seminar that ‘as journalists, we have the duty to understand where the weight of the evidence has got to. And that is an incredibly important thing in terms of public understanding – equipping citizens, informing the public as to what’s going to happen or not happen possibly over the next couple of hundred years.’
Roger Mosey, Director of Sport, said that in his former job as head of TV News, he had been lobbied by scientists ‘about what they thought was a disproportionate number of people denying climate change getting on our airwaves and being part of a balanced discussion – because they believe, absolutely sincerely, that climate change is now scientific fact.
The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution is to increase public awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and accurate programming. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution. It remains important that programme-makers relish the full range of debate that such a central and absorbing subject offers, scientifically, politically and ethically, and avoid being misrepresented as standard-bearers. The wagon wheel remains a model shape. But the trundle of the bandwagon is not a model sound.”
The Trust reports (first sentence of last paragraph): “The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.”
Unfortunately for the tarnished, even shattered, reputation of the BBC it turns out that these “best scientific experts” whom the BBC consulted turned out to be nothing of the sort. The BBC spent tens of thousands of pounds on legal costs trying to prevent access to the list of their “best scientific experts” using FOI legislation only to find that the BBC itself had already published the list of the “best scientific experts” on the internet. Their “best scientific experts” turned out to be nothing of the sort. It is hardly surprising that trust in the once hallowed BBC Trust has evaporated. Here is the list of the “best scientific experts” whom the BBC consulted before deciding to abandon impartial reporting and judge for yourself:
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director,
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia

June 10, 2019 8:52 am

Donna Laframboise has some comments about McKitrick, Pielke and Podesta, on her blog.

Extreme Politics: The Roger Pielke Jr. Story
Rabid dog climate enforcers will destroy you without conscience or regret.

Last week, an article by economist Ross McKitrick appeared in Canada’s National Post. Titled This scientist proved climate change isn’t causing extreme weather – so politicians attacked, it tells the story of Roger Pielke Jr., a professor in Boulder, Colorado who has been mercilessly persecuted for the unpardonable sin of telling the truth.

With Canada’s Prime Minister childishly insisting a national carbon tax will prevent wildfires, floods, and tornadoes, McKitrick sets us straight …

Read the rest at:

June 10, 2019 1:27 pm

So now that Trudeau has solved Canada’s climate problems and they won’t be experiencing any more extreme weather, what world problem does he tackle next?

George Davidson
June 13, 2019 7:02 pm

I was on Huffpost today and got scolded for even questioning carbon tax effectiveness n fighting climate change. Then it got worse. Someone suggested that all climate change deniers should be put in jail.
These people are hard core and extreme.

I have a science degree and have read lots on this topic. The alarmists data is twenty years old and has been proven wrong. Greenland ice is expanding and he polar bears are thriving. An we have been in a 20 year cooling period.
I think we in Canada are in trouble. Our Prime minister has no science background and has bought in to the alarmists propaganda

George Davidson
June 13, 2019 7:06 pm

I just posted a comment. How do sensible people fight back against the climate change alarmists.
There is no reasoning with them

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights