Germany’s Tragic 2021 floods and misinformation from Orwellian Science NewSpeak

From Jim Steele

Video reveals the natural weather dynamics that undeniably caused the deadly July 2021 flooding in Germany and clearly refutes any causal connection to global warming

4.9 20 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 5, 2021 10:31 pm

Living in Germany, I’ve watched the spoon-fed chatter on a continual basis. What occurred in this valley was mostly predictable (right weather conditions, housing mostly just a meter or two above the stream, tight hillsides favoring a massive run-off, and a absolute micro-burst storm). I can show you on the map thousands of villages which are built along streams, with hills ready to pass the run-off down for floods to occur.

September 5, 2021 11:52 pm

The heavy rainfall in the south of North Rhine-Westphalia and north of Rhineland-Palatinate in Germany produced accumulations which averaged 100 to 150 mm (3.9 to 5.9 in) in 24 hours, equivalent to more than a month’s worth of rain. In Reifferscheid, 207 mm (8.1 in) fell within a nine-hour period while Cologne observed 154 mm (6.1 in) in 24 hours. Some of the affected regions may not have seen rainfall of this magnitude in the last 1,000 years.

The records were broken by 50% in Cologne…

There is no comparing this to any normal or even previous record across the whole region

Frankly this article is an utterly shameful evasion of the facts!

Jim Steele
Reply to  griff
September 6, 2021 12:42 am

Oh Griff, When will the troll factory send us an honest intelligent troll . At least then we could have a meaningful discussion. But no, they send you ad nauseum

If you were not shamefully distorting the scientific facts presented in this video, you would have quoted the WWA study’s own words

it is not possible to base a confident statement about the existence or lack of a trend in RX2day for this region on the available observational data, as natural variability is too high compared to the signal on this small scale. Thus, the fit does not indicate a significant change visible over natural variability

Reply to  Jim Steele
September 6, 2021 1:38 am


Yes, the troll factory sends us the dishonest unintelligent utterly and nauseously disconnected from science trollops…

<Snicker!> <Snicker!>

Ron Long
Reply to  Jim Steele
September 6, 2021 2:33 am

Great comment, as usual, Jim Steele. This lack of valid signal against the noisy background of natural variance is what sets geologists off. If sea level was 50 meters higher in the past, without any humans on the planet, that is natural. If a rainfall record was broken from 200 years ago, before industrialization, what caused it 200 years ago?

Reply to  Jim Steele
September 6, 2021 4:02 am

they send you ad nauseum

His track record of boring people to death is most impressive

Reply to  Jim Steele
September 6, 2021 9:52 am

Yeah, I’d have to agree and add that there should be limits to tolerance. Griff has been allowed to abuse & bait this site way too long.

Reply to  Jim Steele
September 6, 2021 12:59 pm

Griff can be only trusted to get it wrong

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Lrp
September 6, 2021 5:25 pm

And he cannot get that right sometimes.

Reply to  griff
September 6, 2021 12:49 am

“Some of the affected regions may not have seen rainfall of this magnitude in the last 1,000 years.”

That’s wiki for you. Those “records” – how far back?
And that 50% – link?

Last edited 11 days ago by lee
Reply to  lee
September 6, 2021 1:54 am

Some of the affected regions may not have seen rainfall of this magnitude in the last 1,000 years.”

Some of“, unable to specifically disprove, but the majority may have seen rainfall of this magnitude.

may not“, references the fact that most locations were not or did not have weather records before the modern era.

seen“, again a reference to the sparse record keeping before mid 20th century.

All wrapped together so the trollop can sophistically misuse pseudo facts and sound authoritative.

Pathetic fraud.

Reply to  ATheoK
September 6, 2021 7:20 am

may not have == may have.
So that’s the same as saying:

Most of the affected regions may have seen rainfall of this magnitude in the last 1,000 years.”

Same information content, but doesn’t read quite the same.

Last edited 11 days ago by Greg
Tom Abbott
Reply to  lee
September 6, 2021 3:28 pm

“may not”

Yes, that stuck out to me, too. Griff should have used Medium CONfidence, instead. Then he would sound just like the exaggerators at the UN IPCC.

Reply to  griff
September 6, 2021 12:55 am

If only one time you would accept facts as what they are: facts.
And facts were presented in the video.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 6, 2021 7:31 am

How can they be facts when they go against his catechism?

Reply to  Rich Davis
September 6, 2021 8:56 am

Cathechism doesn’T care about facts, that’s why it’s catechism, aka religion 😀

James Snook
Reply to  griff
September 6, 2021 12:56 am

“Some of the affected regions may not have seen rainfall of this magnitude in the last 1,000 years.”

….so you accept that it’s happened before and it couldn’t have been CO2 concentration then.

Reply to  James Snook
September 6, 2021 2:52 am

Looking at 1 in 100 years, the technical term is however 1% annual excedence probability.,
1% AEP. However when we look at 1 in 500 years it’s 0.2%. 1 in 1000 years is 0.1%
Which shows that comparing their probabilities it’s a tiny difference, and that’s reflected in the estimated rainfall itself ( it always estimated as of course the details never exist for that long, but that’s ok as statistical techniques can be used).
The longer the AEP the smaller the jump in the quantum of rainfall

Reply to  griff
September 6, 2021 1:04 am

Tell that to the 10,000 who died in Germany in 1634, or the 15,000 that died in the Netherlands in 1651, or the 10,000 that died in Russia in 1824, or the 400 that died in Hungary in 1878, or the 1200 who died in Germany in 1910, or the 700 that died in Catalonis in 1962, or the 209 that died in Rumania in 1970, or the 110 who died in 2002, or the 172 that died in Russia in 2012 or ….and so it goes on and on

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Anthony
September 6, 2021 2:03 am


While the major 1953 flood in the Netherlands took a few thousand lives it was devastating in the destruction of property and loss of animals. I remember my teacher in the fifties telling us about the response of the Dutch and their dykes. They adapted and nothing on this scale has been repeated in the Netherlands for over 68 years.

Reply to  Anthony
September 6, 2021 4:04 am

and so it goes on and on

Trouble is, so does griff.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  fretslider
September 6, 2021 5:27 pm

Until he froths at the mouth and falls over backwards.

Jim Steele
Reply to  griff
September 6, 2021 1:12 am

As addressed in the video regards Orwellian newspeak it is no surprise that Griff’s reference from Wikipedia that “Some of the affected regions may not have seen rainfall of this magnitude in the last 1,000 years”is based on the Washington Post and NY Times report

Last edited 11 days ago by Jim Steele
Reply to  Jim Steele
September 6, 2021 7:15 pm

This group has looked at the actual weather stations values.
Visible is a high variance across the years, highlighting the unpredictable nature of heavy rain events. Extreme spikes occur every couple of decades, marking decade- or century-level heavy rain. However, the 25-year moving average curve shows no significant change in the average number of heavy rain events over the last 100 years.
And then the quantum of rain falling
The mean precipitation intensity of the average event remains constant at around 73 litres per m² throughout the last 100 years. Data recorded before 1950 should be taken with caution, as the number of observations was much smaller,

Jim Steele
Reply to  griff
September 6, 2021 1:25 am

Lastly Griff needs to educate himself about Atmospheric Rivers because ARS typically deliver “n 24 hours, the equivalent to more than a month’s worth of rain.” Such statements are a variation of Simpson’s Paradox” exemplifying “torturing the data” to create a dreadful illusion

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Jim Steele
September 6, 2021 2:23 am

In 1970 in one night between 8 and 12 inches fell on the hills outside the small semi-desert town where my father’s bookshop and other shops were destroyed by the flood. This was a full year of rainfall.

I saw something similar when this amount of rain fell in a single day in the city – in the Intertropical Convergence Zone – where I was living. I twice emptied my 4 inch rain gauge and it nearly filled a third time. This city was not as badly flooded because this kind of rainfall was not unexpected and they had large storm water drains. This is called good planning and sensible adapting – something the climate alarmist do not get.

Reply to  griff
September 6, 2021 1:48 am

Thank you for that. Some people here would even try to claim the Johnstown flood of 1889 wasn’t caused by global warming, even though the rainfall of 6-10 inches in 24 hours that caused the tragedy couldn’t have been caused by anything else.


Tom Abbott
Reply to  Kazinski
September 6, 2021 3:36 pm

Are you seriously claiming the Johnstown flood was caused by global warming?

The flood might have been caused by a rich, arrogant man fiddling with, and weakening the dam, for his own personal reasons.

Whether the rich, arrogant man was the cause or not, I think we can say with certainty that human-caused global warming was not the cause in 1889.

Apparently, the Johnstown area received a lot of rain during the time, and the dam was always suspected of being ready to fail.

They said the towns downriver of Johnstown were always getting alarms about the dam breaking whenever a heavy rain fell, to the point that when the dam actually broke, the people at Johnstown telegraphed a warming to the people downstream, but the people downstream thought it was just another false alarm and ignored the warning and many people died as a result.

Last edited 10 days ago by Tom Abbott
Chuck no longer in Houston
Reply to  Kazinski
September 9, 2021 3:06 pm

Maybe you should’ve thrown a /sarc in there. I thought it was funny immediately but the usually not so gullible Tom A took it a bit too seriously.

Hari Seldon
Reply to  griff
September 6, 2021 3:15 am

Dear Mr. Griff,
Again some info for you directly from Germany In Ahr-walley was the flood in 1804 bigger, the flood in 1910 about the same. However, the causes of the damages were mainly man-made: Bad water management practice, buildings in the riverbed, etc.

Reply to  griff
September 6, 2021 4:34 am

anyone who looks honestly at the past will see that extreme weather catastrophes have always been a part of life . this morning I heard it said on the BBC that extreme weather events have become five ( ten ? ) times more likely than 50 years ago . but just off the top of my head , fifty years ago a typhoon hit Bangla Desh killing 500,000 people and thousands of people were dieing from drought in Africa . in 1969 hurricane Camille , the second most powerful hurricane ever , hit the gulf coast with a 20 foot storm surge . we don’t need to look into the future to see extreme weather events , we can look at history to find them . whatever can be done to protect people from weather disasters should be done without muddying the waters by arguing about climate change . whether the climate changes or not we will continue to have weather disasters just as we always have .

Reply to  griff
September 6, 2021 4:51 am

problem is you this shameful w…nker lives in England!

Go deal with the problems on your doorstep, and don’t even attempt to mess with Germany, cos you haven’t a clue!

Reply to  griff
September 6, 2021 5:29 am

First off, it is a complete lie that the area in question hasn’t seen that much rainfall in 1000 years. There are a dozen floods of equal or greater magnitude during the the last 500 years.

Regardless, your claim that there were equivalent storms 1000 years ago puts the lie to your claim that only CO2 could have caused this storm.

Reply to  MarkW
September 6, 2021 11:15 pm

There are a dozen floods of equal or greater magnitude during the the last 500 years.”
Really? Do you mean you can reference, actual, genuine, real data to back this up? Or… did you “make this up Mark”?

Reply to  MarkW
September 7, 2021 1:15 pm

Hmmm curiously quiet. What’s the problem Mark? Surely in “your world” you need to be able to back up statements you make, or is that only for the “looney left” you love to hate.

B Clarke
Reply to  griff
September 6, 2021 5:42 am

You really have to start thinking griff ,when a article includes phrases such as ” may not” its clearly unsubstantiated, its like me saying ” griff may never of passed his driving test ” would you expect people to believe that statement be it true or false without some evidence? So why would anyone believe “may not ” the article could of said probably instead, it would still be unsubstantiated.

Rich Davis
Reply to  B Clarke
September 6, 2021 7:51 am

griff may not have lied in every assertion that he made today. Based on the Costanza principle, “it’s not a lie if you believe it”

Reply to  Rich Davis
September 7, 2021 12:32 pm

Not that this has anything to do with this post, but … ‘It’s not a lie if … you tell it to a vegetarian.”

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  griff
September 6, 2021 7:36 am


David Kamakaris
Reply to  griff
September 6, 2021 8:58 am

Griff, how long is your record?

David Roger Wells
Reply to  griff
September 6, 2021 10:50 am

German Christmas flood 1717 14,000 died. China flood 1887 2 million died. American dustbowl 1936 12,000 died in one week. UAH satellite data trend declined from 0.15C/decade to 0.13C/decade or 1.03C by 2100. 4,000 ARGO buoys reveal trend of 0.02/decade or 0.16C by 2100. Possible surface warming since 1880 0.85C BBC Climate Change by Numbers. 95% proxy data spliced with 5% surface thermometer readings. The only data we can trust has only existed since 1979 and 2000 from ARGO buoys the rest is twisted smoothed massaged raised and lowered to promote the belief that humans are influencing Mother Nature. The simplest expedient is hurricane Ida. A typical hurricane has the explosive force equivalent to 10 million Hiroshima nuclear bombs. Please tell me how 0.04% of the atmosphere which is Co2 can influence or marginalise the effect of 10 million Hiroshima nuclear bombs, what is the equation?

Then tell me how being Net Zero is going to influence temperature climate and weather when in the UK we are told hedgerows will need to be 40% larger for the UK to be Net Zero. and the UK’s net emissions are a miniscule 0.5% which means hedgerows in China will need to be 1240 times larger which makes China’s hedgerows 5,000 feet high.

Rick C
Reply to  griff
September 6, 2021 11:09 am

Griff: 4 or 6 inches of rain in 24 hours is hardly extreme. Here in Wisconsin we regularly get 3 inches or more in a single thunderstorm. In some months we might get only 2 or 3 rain events but still reach our normal monthly total. Yes, 4 inches or more in a day is a lot – we call those rainfalls gully-washers – and they do result in some flash flooding and damage, but they are still normal weather events and not a sign of the apocalypse.

Reply to  griff
September 7, 2021 3:04 am

Re: “more than a month’s worth of rain”; in fact most useful rainfall is like this – as anyone who has set-up a rainwater tank or water butt at their home will soon find out. Most of a year’s rain comes in a few short heavy storms – not as a constant year-round drizzle.
Here in UK there is an adage about the uselessness of water butts – that they are full when you least need them; and empty when you most need them.

Last edited 10 days ago by JCalvertN(UK)
September 6, 2021 12:53 am

WWA is a partnership of:

  • Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford (ECI)
  • Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI)
  • Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environment (LSCE)
  • University of Princeton
  • National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
  • Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre (The Climate Centre).

But what would they know. Nah I’m sticking with Jim and his gut instincts. /sarc

Jim Steele
Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 1:01 am

LOL. Now the troll factory sends Griff’s twin.Those 2 “Great minds” think alike

Oh when will Loydo attempt an intelligent scientific refutation of the facts presented here. BUt no, all poor Loydo can muster is “WWA is a partnership” so no reason to think any further LOL. As if Loydo could

Reply to  Jim Steele
September 6, 2021 1:23 am

I gave you a chance last post but you dodged the question.

“My question remains; if better drainage is causing the land to warm, what’s causing the ocean to warm by a magnitude more?”

This video is just more amateur doubt-mongering. Orwellian? Are you mad?

What actual climate scients say:
“This ScienceBrief Review examines the links between climate change and extreme rainfall that can lead to severe flooding. It synthesises findings from more than 170 peer-reviewed scientific articles…

Future projections suggest that much of the world will experience enhanced rainfall extremes and risk of flooding with ongoing climate change (Arnell & Gosling, 2016; Alfieri et al., 2017; Tabari 2021). ”

170 peer-reviewed papers? Nah, nah lets stick with youtube.

Jim Steele
Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 1:58 am

Patience my dear Loydo, the science of ocean warming will be presented in future videos. But for now NO ONE wants to follow you down your off-topic rabbit holes. That’s just basic troll tactics 101: When the scientific evidence refutes your blind beliefs, then of course, change the subject.

You are pitifully transparent. I suggest the troll factory send you to some sort of more “advanced” training.

Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 2:07 am

What actual climate scients{sic} say:

“This ScienceBrief Review examines the links between climate change and extreme rainfall that can lead to severe flooding. It synthesises findings from more than 170 peer-reviewed scientific articles…”

synthesises“, synthetic facts that are not true or factual.

170 peer-reviewed papers?”, which are not actually referenced. A synthesis machine instead tortures and mis-states the papers.

Future projections suggest“, bad programming, Confirmation Bias, broken models that are unable to provide credible projections and utterly fail at “Future projections”. Every climate model, at best, has failed to project weather beyond a few days.

Another pathetic fraud.

Reply to  ATheoK
September 6, 2021 5:41 am

You missed one. actual climate scients(sic), This would be anyone who’s opinion matches that of the troll, regardless of scientific training or background. On the other hand, those who disagree with the troll are not actual climate scients(sic), regardless of scientific training or background.

Last edited 11 days ago by MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 5:05 am

You could always take a look at Pierre Gosselin’s ‘No Tricks Zone’ where he links to over 2,000 peer-reviewed, published papers over the last seven or eight years which call into question the received wisdom on climate as well as some of the methods employed by the practitioners.
Puts your 170 in the shade.

Reply to  Newminster
September 6, 2021 5:47 am

But those weren’t by actual climate scientists, so they don’t count.

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
September 6, 2021 7:57 am

They were actual climate scientists, but they don’t count because they were not LoyDoh-approved scients.

Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 5:38 am

The claimed ocean warming is only 0.03C. That’s over an order of magnitude less than the accuracy of the gauges being used, and that’s before the inadequate number of sensors is considered.

Beyond that, the mere fact that the oceans might be warming is not evidence that CO2 must be the cause.

CO2 wasn’t the cause of the warming from 1800 to 1950.

Future projections. That would be the same models that have predicted 3 times more warming than was actually seen over the last 30 years.

Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 5:45 am

“My question remains; if better drainage is causing the land to warm, what’s causing the ocean to warm by a magnitude more?”

The Sun.

Last edited 11 days ago by fretslider
Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 5:53 am

Listen to the post before relying on your usual appeal to authority. Actual meteorology pales compared to credentialism in your worldview.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 6:54 am

I see Lodocrap is living up to his name.

Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 7:08 am

“Projections suggest” – all said.
If you really believe, these projections present any reality or replace facts, than it’s time to have a look where you find medical help as fast as possible.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 8:08 am

What exactly do you mean by “causing the ocean to warm by a magnitude more”?

When something changes by an order of magnitude, it increases by a factor of 10. Now the average (bulk) ocean temperature is something like 277K. Either you are claiming that it recently warmed from 28K to the current 277K, or that it is about to rise from 277K to 2770K (about half the temperature of the sun’s surface). Which is it?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rich Davis
September 6, 2021 3:54 pm

Good question, Rich.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 9:20 am

You employed a massive logical fallacy in your first post. There is no good reason to try to refute it.

Richard M
Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 10:03 am

“My question remains; if better drainage is causing the land to warm, what’s causing the ocean to warm by a magnitude more?”

Lots of possibilities and I suspect your response to any of them will be science denial. You only believe your ordained climate priests.

My own view is the warming is due to a natural millennial cycle which shows up in many historic proxies. The cycle is driven by salinity changes initiated by melt pulses at the beginning of the Holocene.

Higher salinity means lower evaporation rates which will lead to warming. Nothing complicated. Basic physics.

Over the last 50 years this has been enhanced by human pollution of the oceans, most significantly plastics. Same principle. It lowers the evaporation rate. It also leads to more energy absorption nearer the surface.

Lower evaporation rates means the same amount of solar energy takes longer to be released into the atmosphere. The water warms until the evaporation rate reaches a new equilibrium.

Interestingly, higher CO2 levels increase ocean evaporation which has likely kept the warming down.

Last edited 10 days ago by Richard M
Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 11:14 am

Doubt mongering. Notice how the greatest crime is casting doubts on the words of the profit.

Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 1:27 pm

More appeal to authority from Loydo; yawn

Reply to  Jim Steele
September 6, 2021 10:00 am

“Think” is being a bit magnanimous.

Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 1:08 am

Hey playdo who of them said it was a “record”? Who of them said it had never happened before? LOL

Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 3:56 am

ROFL ==> Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre
Never let an opportunity for some NGO’s to get on on the gravy train and get that money rolling in.

Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 5:35 am

As usual, the only defense against actual facts is to declare that those it regards as scientists, agree with it.

Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 5:48 am

Organizations whose entire existence relies on claiming there is a climate crisis declaring a climate crisis. In the history of bureaucracy, what agency (outside the Department of Defense) has ever taken action that caused it to shrink?

Reply to  Loydo
September 6, 2021 9:16 am

The Netherlands KNMI is well known for constantly adjusting their past temperature data, so it fits the narrative of Global Warming or should I say Global Heating, so yeah, they really are a reliable source. /sarc. I’ll stick with Jim on this one. The markings on the church of past floods (1800 hundreds) higher then this recent one, should convince rational thinking people that this has nothing to do with the Climate Crisis hysteria.

Paul Jenkinson
September 6, 2021 12:59 am

Could you please tell me what statements specifically were non-factual in the video.
Even to a layman,the statements made were well known and accepted meteorological truths which could explain the past history and future inevitability of major flooding in that area of the world.
Not true? If not,why not.

Paul Jenkinson
Reply to  Paul Jenkinson
September 6, 2021 1:01 am

that was supposed to be a reply to Griff.

Reply to  Paul Jenkinson
September 6, 2021 2:42 am

That’s ok, he’s unlikely to answer anyway.

Reply to  Archer
September 6, 2021 5:14 am

The pathetic “griff” entity is incapable of answering anything.
He’s the very definition of one way traffic.

I dunno why people are even decent enough to answer such a moron.

Rich Davis
Reply to  pigs_in_space
September 6, 2021 8:24 am

Speaking only for myself, the reason griff gets responses from me is so that he isn’t allowed to leave his turds in the punchbowl unanswered. There is never any expectation that it will change his “mind”, or elicit a thoughtful response. It’s strictly for the benefit of other readers who could be confused by his rot.

Reply to  Rich Davis
September 6, 2021 9:13 am

He does present an all too easy target

Difficult to pass up

Ian Magness
September 6, 2021 1:05 am

Excellent and most informative video Jim. Definitely one to keep for future reference (if the thought police don’t get it deleted from the internet…).
I’m sure I’m not the only one looking forward to your future films. Keep it up!

September 6, 2021 1:06 am

The flooding in Germany was truly horrific.

“Following the passage of a Genoa low the rivers Rhine, Moselle, Main, Danube, Weser, Werra, Unstrut, Elbe, Vltava and their tributaries inundated large areas. Many towns such as Cologne, Mainz, Frankfurt am Main, Würzburg, Regensburg, Passau and Vienna were seriously damaged. Even the river Eider north of Hamburg flooded the surrounding land. The affected area extended to Carinthia and northern Italy. [..] A precise number of casualties remains unknown, but it is believed that in the Danube area alone, 6,000 people perished.”

That was in 1342, 679 years ago.

Hari Seldon
Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 6, 2021 3:30 am

The estimated death toll in Germany were about 60.000 lives (Magdalenenwasser). German alarmists have already tried to suggest, that the cause of the death toll in 1342 was pest (black death). However, the pest (black death) came to Germany first in 1348-49.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 6, 2021 7:28 am

This was a time of transition between the MWP and the LIA when there were also unusual, extreme weather events in the ancient Khmer kingdom in Cambodia, around this time, approximately. There were periods of extreme droughts followed by extreme floods, over a number of decades, which caused a large portion of the Khmer population to gradually leave in search of better locations. 

The civilization was very weakened as a result of this rapid change in climate, and their enemy, the Thais, invaded, which was the final nail in the coffin. That great civilization with literally hundreds of magnificent temples, became lost in the jungle. Angkor Wat is the most well-known temple, but is just one of hundreds spanning a significant area.

I can’t help wondering if similar events occurring now, are an indication that we are transitioning from the current warm period to another LIA.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Vincent
September 6, 2021 3:59 pm

I saw a science show not long ago covering this matter. It was very interesting.

Andy H
September 6, 2021 1:19 am
Reply to  Andy H
September 6, 2021 6:28 am

If some of that moisture had found its way to the U.S. Northwest, then the Great Fire of 1910 might not have been so great.

M Courtney
September 6, 2021 1:42 am

It doesn’t matter why the deaths happened. That’s only important to ambulance chasing lawyers and political hacks.

What matters is how to stop them happening again.
We cannot control the weather. 2020 demonstrated that we cannot lockdown hard enough to affect atmospheric CO2 concentration.

We can control building regulations.

So the choice is simple: Adapt or waste time whining.

I am not an environmentalist. I actually do care about the environment and people. So I say adapt.

Jim Steele
Reply to  M Courtney
September 6, 2021 1:59 am

Indeed adapt! As mentioned in the video, it was successful in the Netherlands

Rich Davis
Reply to  Jim Steele
September 6, 2021 8:34 am

But it has only been working for about 1000 years, Jim. How do we know it’s going to last?

Arjan Duiker
September 6, 2021 3:37 am

Jim Steele, thank you so much for that excellent scientific explanation that have paled all previous MSM junk.

September 6, 2021 3:50 am

ADAPTATION is the only response to extreme weather events and the DATA proves this is correct.
To waste trillions $ on the TOXIC, clueless dilute S&W disasters is just the ultimate lunacy, but we wouldn’t expect our silly blog donkeys to understand.
Willis asked us about their so called climate emergency a few months ago and obviously there isn’t anything that is an emergency at all.
In fact extreme weather events cost very few lives today compared to 100 years ago and deaths have dropped by at least 95% today. JUST CHECK the DATA at the link.
And I thought everyone understood this real world DATA? Silly me. Go Willis.

September 6, 2021 4:19 am

Poorly planned and built infrastructure and a total failure by governmental agencies to adequately warn those in danger caused this disaster. Climate had only a passing acquaintance with it.

Reply to  2hotel9
September 6, 2021 6:04 am

Yeah, like NYC from Ida?

Reply to  Yooper
September 6, 2021 6:23 am

Civil authorities watched coming, they were safe so that was all they worried about. I am in western PA, 400 odd miles away from NYC and I saw it was going to pound them. Professionals could not see it coming?

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Yooper
September 6, 2021 7:46 am

Are you suggesting New York has never been hit by the remnants of a hurricane, or directly by a hurricane?
Toronto was slammed by hurricanes several times in the past, lots of flooding and death.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Yooper
September 6, 2021 4:06 pm

The whole northeast of the U.S. got soaked by Hurricane Henri, which saturated the ground with water so it could not absorb any more, and then along comes Hurricane Ida and dumps more water in the same place and causes unusual flooding.

I think people were paying attention to Hurricane Ida, but may not have taken into consideration the situation that Hurricane Henri left them in, which made the situation more dangerous than if only one hurricane were involved.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 6, 2021 7:22 pm

Plus they cherry picked the location for the highest rainfall. Central Park is only one site of a many rainfall measurements but it became a thing as it was ‘ a record’ for that site. And even then it wasnt a time hour like 9-10 but just the highest 60 min they could find
More useful would be the median rainfall over NYC

September 6, 2021 4:25 am

With climate change we have a classic case of ‘blackwhite’ – The ability to accept whatever “truth” the alarmists put out, no matter how absurd it may be. Like a warmer Arctic making winters colder etc.

Reporting avoids real scientific knowledge – which includes the doubts, many uncertainties and admitting there are unknown unknowns. The media’s reportage is complete ‘bellyfeel’ – aimed at emotional understanding. Blind, enthusiastic acceptance of what is being reported. Polar bears are cuddly, Walrus are cute etc. Think of the children.

‘Crimethink’ – even considering any thought not in line with the principles of the climate agenda. Doubting any of the principles of the climate agenda. All crimes begin with a thought…

So the climate faithful have to be adept at ‘doublethink’ – reality control. The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accept both of them, eg a warmer Arctic making winters colder – irrespective of actual ice cover etc.

But it isn’t just climate, it’s politics – the politics of identity, made up gender etc. Orwell wrote the books the post-modern left have adopted as manuals. I wonder who their Emmanuel Goldstein is?

Newspeak dictionary:

Last edited 11 days ago by fretslider
David Dibbell
September 6, 2021 4:31 am

Jim Steele, thank you for another clear and sensible presentation.

John Bell
September 6, 2021 7:16 am

Rapid attribution = alarmists are quick to blame C02 (without intermediate warming)

September 6, 2021 7:31 am

Thanks Jim, nice explanatory video. IMHO, it was not enhanced by the mugshot tictok in the corner. No one’s distorted head looks good on a web cam. The movement distracts from the presentation and the visual does not add anything positive to the presentation. If you do another I would suggest just the voice over.

BTW, exposing the Guardian’s overt bias of ridiculous Orwellian language is a good preamble.

Last edited 11 days ago by Greg
Rich T.
September 6, 2021 7:55 am

Just had Hurricane Ida go thru this area. 6 inches of rain here. Other areas got 8-9 inches of rain. in 2011 Lee had hit the area. Nothing to do with CC or AGW. Just normal weather patterns. As for Griff and facts neither will meet at the same place.

September 6, 2021 10:22 am

The video mentions Climate Desk as an organisation of news outlets, I didn’t know there are so many properganda websites dedicated to promoting one narrative. It seems “News outlet” (I say that advisedly) such as the Guardian belong to multiple websites as the Guardian logo appears on the Change Climate Now website, all promoting one message. I makes me want to ask the question who is behind this steering group?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Galileo9
September 6, 2021 4:12 pm

Big money leftwing billionaires are behind the climate change propaganda machine.

They are trying to brainwash the Western Democracies into compliance with their goals. In order to control the rest of us, they have to lie to us, and that’s what this propaganda machine is all about.

Ulric Lyons
September 8, 2021 4:13 am

The IPCC circulation models, which continue to be supported by the UK Met Office models, predict drier summers for northwest Europe with rising CO2 forcing. Because they predict increasingly positive North Atlantic Oscillation conditions with rising CO2 forcing. Yet the summers have on average become wetter since 1995, evidently because of the decline in indirect solar forcing increasing negative NAO conditions, and which also drives a warm AMO phase, which then supplies more water vapour.

%d bloggers like this: