Delingpole: Wikipedia Airbrushes List of Climate Sceptic Scientists Out of History

I found the archived version of the “Climate Deniers List” and I did not see Christopher Monkton. Is he just not trying hard enough? Or is this an indication of the accuracy of the “List”?

Interestingly , even a long established consensus can be revised by scientists with an objective attitude that would not endear them to Wiki’s owners/editors. My comment is prompted by the recent post on Paul Homewood’s site:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/03/09/met-office-does-not-know-what-extreme-weather-is/#comments
where “climanrecon” draws attention to a very recent article from Roy Met soc:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.6208
-“Multi‐century trends to wetter winters and drier summers in the England and Wales precipitation series explained by observational and sampling bias in early records-”
Picking out part of the conclusion:
-“Our findings challenge the widely reported trend to wetter winters and drier summers in England and Wales precipitation. Indeed, for winter the biases we identify in EWP are likely to have distorted many other long‐term European precipitation series (e.g., Murphy et al., 2018) and dependent analyses (e.g., Wilby et al., 2016), particularly through the under‐catch of snow. Our findings that pre‐1870 precipitation is likely too low in winter and that pre‐1820 precipitation is likely too high in summer raise issues about the application of early EWP data to historical drought analysis, climate model evaluation and for benchmarking other precipitation and proxy records for these periods.”- (EWP = England Wales Precipitation series)

One of the authors is Phil Jones of Climate Research Unit , UEA .

Its worse when you look at the supposed explanation of the “science”. When you check “Global Warming” on Wikipedia you get a number of assertions which are either unprovebale, unsupported by evidence in fact, actually denied by evidence and unrelated to global climate measurement or effect by clear definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

To select a few of the outright deceits on the facts. The first para[rah says “While there have been prehistoric periods of global warming,[12] observed changes since the mid-20th century have been unprecedented in rate and scale.[13]”.

This is clearly false, as the rate and range of change is known to have been similar for rate and greater for range and upper limit during this recent and very short 10,000 year Holecene interglacial, though Minoan/Egyptian Greco Roman periods. The actual rise in the very recent 500 year past is steady and around the small 0.5 deg /century we have directly observed as well as through proxies since 1670, . The gradual cyclic rise and fall we haveobserved ove the whole interglacial is now seen to be most probably due to the three key solar cycles of 1,000, 500 and 200 year periods , which together can quite precisely account for the cyclic change observed throughout the interglacial, which CO2 and AGW cannot, and which have all combined positively to reach a concurrent maximum at c.2000 AD, as also happened at 1,000AD. ANd a dstrutcive mimum at 1650 or so. Selecting a small part of a natural cycle that is going up now, and is due to go down again soon, over hundreds of years, and declaring eternal runaway rise is the future on the basis of a 50 year clip, in the knowledge of the known natural reality is simply delusional. For so called “scientists’ , its a deliberate deceit created to deceive people for grant reward.

The next bit of “science” is the assertion that because a lot on University academics paid to prove rather than test the CO2/AGW theory agree, even though the facts deny their assertions, then they must be right and the observations are wrong.

SIC
“These findings have been recognised by the national science academies of the major industrialised nations[16][17] and are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[18][19]”
ENDS

This is overtly false on the definition of scientific method. It also implies all agree, which many academies or academics within them or their profs do not. UAH for a start. Most of the selected academies agreeing have been funded by the IPCC or their governments to prove something that the science facts have later denied. Consensus is what you do when you can’t prove something you want to impose on others.

It doesn’t matter how many agree, if one person can prove the theory wrong, It’s wrong. Feynman, EIsntein had that locked down.

The rest of it gets ever more unscientific as it goes on. The sea level rise is known to be similar to that applying long before the human effect is supposed to have started. The assertion about increased extreme weather is denied by the IPCC itself as not the fact, the authors then start mixing up global with regional climate change which is mainly regional ocean oscillations unrelated to 30 year average temperatures and global effects, which the IPCC also acknowledges. Serious fairy tales.

And ultimately the lack of any factual proof that CO2 or AGW is responsible for the observed change, and the ignored evidence regarding measured GHE effect versus that predicted, is totally ignored. Hardly unbiased sceptical science.

But the killer blow is the use of Michael Mann’s fraudulent fake science, the discredited and wrong Hockey stick graph as the basis of the warming statement, the same one that smoothed off the actual cooling from the mediaeval warm period peak when Greenland was colonised and farmed at 1,000AD to the1670 ‘s little ice age floor when it wasn’t, and subsequent steady rise of 0.5 degrees per century to today’s levels, plus another wholly assertive graph claiming to show what change would be without the unknown human effect, based on no science at all.

AS for the sensationalist litany of XR/THunberg anti fact, the deserts are not expanding, plant growth at their peripheries is encroaching on the deserts thanks probably to CO2 increase. Climate varies regionally, and always has. Droughts and wildfires have only increased or been made worse in places when human interference with the local natural forest management has been the main problem. The “extinction of many species” is getting completely wild – which species, and from what cause? Mostly its competition for land, not changing habitat. Just think of anything you can, and blame it on climate change. Mostly falsely. In fact deaths from natural extreme events are down 90% from a few decades ago, many more Billion people are out of poverty most of the World has reduced infant mortality , saving 4 children from early deaths per family. And agricultural productivity is at all time highs, as is reduaction of crop failure by disease, etc. Famine caused by inadeqaute food generation has been eliminated, only war zones and government obstruction of adequate supplies now creates famine. We can meet the demand.

SIC
“The effects of global warming include rising sea levels, regional changes in precipitation, more frequent extreme weather events such as heat waves, and expansion of deserts.[20] Surface temperature increases are greatest in the Arctic, which have contributed to the retreat of glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. Overall, higher temperatures bring more rain and snowfall, but for some regions droughts and wildfires increase instead.[21] Climate change threatens to diminish crop yields, harming food security, and rising sea levels may flood coastal infrastructure and force the abandonment of many coastal cities.[22] Environmental impacts include the extinction or relocation of many species as their ecosystems change, most immediately in coral reefs, mountains, and the Arctic.[23] Some impacts, such as loss of snow cover, increased water vapour, and melting permafrost, cause feedback effects that further increase the rate of global warming.[24] Ocean acidification caused by increased CO2 levels is commonly grouped with these effects even though it is not driven by temperature.
ENDS

You can’t make it up. That’s the activists job, and Wikipedia actively promotes deceit by omission and outright lies by assertion.

Wikipedia is no longer a reliable place to go for scientific facts, and certainly not for balance. Look for more unbiased sources when checking facts. Actually, the increasingly wild language and easy to prove false in fact asssertions in these these clips, and elsewhere in this Wiki ,shows just how easy it is to spot that this is activist propaganda, not a considered analysis or a balanced assessment.