BBC’s Fake Climate Check

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

DECEMBER 24, 2021

By Paul Homewood

The BBC is finishing the year with another fake climate check, summarising 2021:

image

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/59746499

The introduction on the website tells us all we need to know. The video has nothing to do with “fact”, but is nothing more than climate propaganda.

It covers the following events, which I have covered individually during the year:

  • Canada heatwave
  • British Columbia floods
  • Floods in China, India & Australia
  • Hurricane Ida
  • Floods in Germany
  • Wildfires in Greece
  • Drought in East Africa

There is the usual nonsense about global warming making all of these worse. But there is no data provided to show that any of these events are remotely unprecedented, or that they are part of a worsening trend.

Indeed, you could come up with a similar number of “remarkable events” for pretty much every year on record.

In Greece, for instance, there have been many years with similarly severe wildfires, and double last summer’s burn occurred in 2007.

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

A few months ago, I wrote a summary of the world’s extreme weather fifty years ago in 1971:

It’s worth re-reading, but here’s just a few of the long list of remarkable weather events that year:

  • Sahel drought
  • Drought in India & China
  • Drought in Texas and Florida
  • Devastating wildfires in the US
  • 100,000 dead in N Vietnam floods
  • Major floods in Australia
  • Orissa Cyclone
  • Major floods in the US
  • Tropical Storm Doria
  • Hurricane Edith, a Cat 5 that hit Nicaragua
  • Montreal’s “Snowstorm of the Century”
  • Giant blizzards in Texas

Any one of these could have legitimately slotted into this year’s Climate Check.

I have now also delved back into the Archives for 1961, and will post it up in a day or so. I promise you that year was every bit as extreme as this!

Mea Culpa!

There is a brief footnote to Ben Rich’s video, where he talks about the Madagascan drought this year, but almost apologetically admits that scientists now say that this was not connected to climate change.

As we know, there have been several similar droughts in the past, so it did not take a genius to work this out.

Given that exactly the same applies to the rest of his list, maybe we can expect a similar apology next month?

Political Propaganda or Fact?

Ben Rich makes the purpose of his video abundantly clear with this closing statement:

“2021 has brought into sharp focus the impact that severe weather is having on peoples around the world.

Limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5C was at the top of the agenda at COP26 in Glasgow, with scientists urging world leaders to commit to cutting GHGs, to stave off a climate catastrophe”

4.8 21 votes
Article Rating
94 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ben Vorlich
December 24, 2021 10:30 pm

A Merry Christmas to all including Griff

All you need to know about support censorship from the BBC.

Climate change: Small army of volunteers keeping deniers off Wikipedia
Wikipedia has for so long been plagued by climate change denial. But a group of dedicated volunteers around the world is working tirelessly to keep the deniers at bay.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-594

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 24, 2021 11:31 pm

What is denial and what is being denied?

Meanwhile you didn’t post any counterpoints to the article at all.

Your link is a 404, LOL

Last edited 26 days ago by Sunsettommy
Stoic
Reply to  Sunsettommy
December 25, 2021 1:24 am

Here is the link. H/T Michael Hart. Another commenter has pointed out that “checking” as used in fact checking does not mean making sure that facts are true but attacking as in ice hockey:

“Climate change: Small army of volunteers keeping deniers off Wikipedia
By Marco Silva Climate change disinformation specialist”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-59452614

Merry Christmas.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Stoic
December 25, 2021 6:58 am

“By Marco Silva Climate change disinformation specialist”

An expert in spreading climate change disinformation.

Last edited 26 days ago by Tom Abbott
Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Sunsettommy
December 25, 2021 1:45 am

Sorry try this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-59452614

David Tetta lives in northern California, in the kind of close-knit community where neighbours just wander into each other’s homes – during our interview, he breaks off for a second to shoo one of them out of the room.

It was while chatting to his neighbours that David first thought of volunteering to edit Wikipedia. In 2019, around the time wildfires were raging across the state, climate change was coming up more and more often as a topic.

“Many conversations seemed to evolve into people expressing their feelings of angst and fear about the environment,” he says.

“I was wondering, what kind of information are people getting?”

Rich Davis
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 25, 2021 5:13 am

Not sure why you’re getting downvotes on this Ben. In a sane world, just highlighting the censorship of climate realism ought to be enough to condemn it. Apparently some readers think you’re in favor of the censors.

2hotel9
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 25, 2021 6:19 am

I was wondering just how Ben got that many down votes, not that many people even in the thread.

Felix
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 25, 2021 9:18 am

The original post had a bad link which probably accounts for some down votes.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 25, 2021 6:02 am

I am trying to vote you back into positive territory but there is not enough of me to get it done. People may be misreading your posts.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Kevin kilty
December 25, 2021 7:10 am

Here, let me help.

Julian Flood
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 24, 2021 11:46 pm

Wikipedia frequently asks for donations
I would prefer to send them the occasional tenner but their suppression of the climate change argument stops me. Who wants to finance censorship?

JF

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Julian Flood
December 25, 2021 12:00 am

The trouble with censorship is ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  Julian Flood
December 25, 2021 4:21 am

same here. no money until they get rid of the green commie bias.

Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
December 27, 2021 3:25 am

Nothing to do with communism.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Julian Flood
December 25, 2021 5:19 am

Each time Wikipedia asks, send WUWT a contribution.

WBrowning
Reply to  Julian Flood
December 28, 2021 12:24 pm

Send it to WUWT or Tony Heller, the guardians of truth.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 25, 2021 3:03 am

interesting to see the article about this blog on Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F

Rich Davis
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 25, 2021 6:17 am

The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as “highly partisan and untrustworthy”.

Now THAT’S funny right there!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 25, 2021 5:02 am

Merry Christmas! Peace on Earth to men of good will

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 25, 2021 7:13 am

Merry Christmas!

griff
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 26, 2021 1:35 am

Happy Xmas!!

I hope you didn’t get a lump of coal in your Xmas stocking!

Paul C
Reply to  griff
December 26, 2021 4:37 am

Santa has had to adjust his practices since house coal has been banned in England!
Merry Christmas.

LdB
Reply to  griff
December 28, 2021 7:47 pm

Could I get several tons please not just a lump?

Doc Chuck
December 24, 2021 10:52 pm

Don’t we all just love our mesmerizing notions of something within our power to make our passing lives significant by saving the world? So jump aboard the exciting bandwagon so you won’t feel left out. All your favorite celebrities are already committed to this truly historic movement, so damn the mundane truth —- and full speed ahead!

Vincent
December 25, 2021 1:16 am

It should be apparent that the cost of successfully protecting all citizens from extreme weather events would be enormous; far greater than the cost of the transformation to renewable sources of energy.

Millions of homes would have to be either relocated or reconstructed, thousands of new dams would have to be built, and thousands of kilometers of water pipes to transfer water from excessively wet areas to excessively dry areas, would have to be constructed, as well as rebuilding and elevating highways subject to flooding, and strengthening buildings in areas subject to hurricanes, tornados and cyclones.

Pretending that extreme weather events are a result of ‘man-made climate change’ is a political and psychological ploy to avoid the alternative enormous cost which would shift a large part of the economy to digging and transforming the landscape, and consuming huge amounts of fossil fuels which are necessary for the operation of bulldozers and other heavy equipment.

Notanacademic
December 25, 2021 1:47 am

I stopped watching the BBC years ago but still have to pay for a TV licence. Nice to know my contribution is not being wasted on tat….sarc.

Merry Christmas.

Redge
Reply to  Notanacademic
December 25, 2021 2:00 am

As long as you don’t watch or record live television, or watch BBC catch up services on any device, there is no need to pay the license fee

I don’t watch live tv or record and gave up on the BBC years ago, so I don’t pay a license

Notanacademic
Reply to  Redge
December 25, 2021 2:40 am

I didn’t know that, thanks. I don’t know what my wife watches when I’m at work, so I may still have to pay it.

Redge
Reply to  Notanacademic
December 25, 2021 3:24 am

You’re welcome

Two things to remember:

  1. The “detector vans” were a con they never worked.
  2. License fee inspectors cannot access your home to check if you’re watching live TV unless they have a warrant to search your home – something that would never be granted by the judiciary

Please note, I am not advocating you don’t pay for a license if anyone in your home watches live tv, records live tv, or watches the BBC on catch up

Notanacademic
Reply to  Redge
December 25, 2021 3:48 am

I didn’t know that about the detector vans although I always suspected. Thanks again.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Notanacademic
December 25, 2021 7:19 am

So detection vans are psychological warfare.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 25, 2021 9:38 am

Or gaslighting?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Redge
December 25, 2021 7:34 pm

The “detector vans” were a con they never worked.

It was always extremely obvious to me that it’s massively simpler to just investigate all of the vanishingly small number of people who don’t pay the licence fee than trying to ‘detect’ anyone watching tv who has not paid. And apartment blocks would be impossible to detect anyway.

I still prefer the UK system. In the UK I never had to pay, as I don’t watch TV. In Australia, my taxes pay for TV regardless (although I don’t pay federal taxes any more). In Italy I can get the TV fee deducted from my property taxes, but couldn’t be bothered to deal with Italian bureaucracy.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Redge
December 27, 2021 6:18 am

The more I read about the UK, the more thankful I am for that band of political genius in the mid-1770s.

Reply to  Notanacademic
December 27, 2021 3:29 am

Let Mrs. Nonacademic pay the licence fee if she watches the BBC.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Notanacademic
December 25, 2021 3:35 am

…. sarc aside, it’s not being wasted on tat though is it? It’s being wasted on useless elitist idiots. Useless elitist idiots have feelings too. Have some compassion as you pay the fee.

Notanacademic
Reply to  philincalifornia
December 25, 2021 3:53 am

Hadn’t thought of it like that now I feel terrible 🤣

Ron Long
December 25, 2021 2:37 am

The weaponizing of normal weather into climate change disaster is not limited to media, look at the State of Oregon official Climatologist. Eugene, Oregon, is well ahead of total December rainfall, and is now undergoing flooding due to heavy rainfall. Many Oregon coastal roads are closed due to mudflows, and passes over the Cascade Mountains, are closed or limited due to heavy snowfall. So what did the Oregon Climatologist change the climate status from – to? From Extreme Drought to Severe Drought! This is the Palmer Drought Index, and Extreme is worst drought condition possible. Flooding? Never mind.

Mike Sexton
Reply to  Ron Long
December 25, 2021 6:56 am

That’s Kate Brownshirt and her minions at work there.
I don’t know about any flooding but we’re getting lots rain here.

Ebor
Reply to  Mike Sexton
December 25, 2021 10:58 am

Ha! like that @Mike Sexton – Kate Brownshirt, hadn’t heard that one yet.

BTW she has declared a State of Hysteria (er, Emergency) for the winter weather here, oh wait, I should say Extreme, Life-Threatening Weather…VERY SCARY!!!

“Our state has experienced a number of climate-related emergencies this year, and with another coming, I urge all Oregonians to make a plan with your family now and be prepared,”

December 25, 2021 2:43 am

Everyone needs to understand that the physical basis for the concept of a planetary atmospheric greenhouse gas is false.
Nicol, John Leslie. “Planetary temperatures in the presence of an inert, nonradiative atmosphere. Quaestiones Geographicae 39 (2020): 69-85.

Last edited 26 days ago by Philip Mulholland.
griff
Reply to  Philip Mulholland.
December 26, 2021 1:37 am

Oh no it isn’t!!

(Pantomime season in the UK….)

Reply to  griff
December 26, 2021 5:00 am

It’s beyond you!!

John V. Wright
December 25, 2021 3:11 am

Thank you Paul. When it comes to manmade global warming the BBC has been a data-free, science-free zone for the last 15 years. It’s all about ‘belief’ of course.
And thank you to Anthony and all the contributors to WUWT who have kept the flame of honest, objective science burning brightly on this forum over the last 12 months.

griff
Reply to  John V. Wright
December 26, 2021 1:37 am

It seems to objectively report climate science and climate related events.

Paul C
Reply to  griff
December 26, 2021 4:43 am

Even the bBC admits that they are NOT objective on matters of climate change since the comedians panel of 28 activists decided that the ever-changing science of global warming / climate change / climate chaos was settled.

LdB
Reply to  griff
December 28, 2021 7:49 pm

Yeah just like pravda accurately reports on world events.

glenn holdcroft
December 25, 2021 6:03 am

BBC , bamboozled brains combined .

Rich Davis
Reply to  glenn holdcroft
December 25, 2021 6:24 am

Cute, but it actually stands for Bolshevik Broadcasting Commissariat

2hotel9
December 25, 2021 6:18 am

Merry Christmas everybody! And my present? Just to point out that when all they have is lies they just screech them louder.

Simon
Reply to  2hotel9
December 25, 2021 10:11 am

Yep I think we can agree, we all hate liars.

Last edited 26 days ago by Simon
Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Simon
December 25, 2021 1:13 pm

Said the Climate Liar.

Simon
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 25, 2021 3:17 pm

Ok name one lie I have stated and I will name a 100 that get recited here regularly.
This will be a fun Christmas game.

You start….

Last edited 26 days ago by Simon
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Simon
December 25, 2021 7:13 pm

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/24/ryan-maue-on-temperature-anomalies/#comment-3418142

Monckton has demonstrated that there has been no increase in the GMT for about 6 years. That does not support your claim that the long-term trend is upward. It has been upward for a long time, but is not currently upward. Extrapolations are always fraught with uncertainties. Your claim is poorly supported, at best.

Where are your ‘100?’

Simon
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 25, 2021 10:58 pm

I thought you were serious then I read Monckton. Ok so his cherry picked nonsense is credible to the gullible, and isn’t considered long term anyway. You can’t look at any data from the last 100 years and not see an increase in temperature. Choose any one (of the recognised sets) and prove me wrong. As for your “not currently upward” that is a lie. If you want to compare where we were last time we were in this phase of La Nina you will see we are higher. I will happily put some money on the fact the next El Nino will bring record global temps. How much you got?

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
December 26, 2021 4:23 am

See? Spewing lies is all you got, lie spewing liar.

Richard M
Reply to  Simon
December 26, 2021 8:52 am

You said “any data” so here you go.

https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1979/trend

Looks like no warming for around 40 years. That’s a pretty big chunk of the “last 100 years”.

In reality the overall trend when AMO and PDO effects are removed appears to be a warming of about .1 – .2 C per century. That’s been going on since the 17th century.

Here’s an example of PDO effects when it went positive in 2014.

https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1997/to/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1997.33/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to/trend

Simon
Reply to  Richard M
December 28, 2021 11:10 am

Mmmm that is an a poor attempt at cherry picking. I said the last 100 years. Try running those numbers from 1921 to 2021. See, this is why skeptics get rightly called climate science deniers.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Simon
December 25, 2021 7:38 pm

Ok name one lie I have stated

How about the statement that you always admit when proved wrong. You never admitted being wrong when you mocked a commenter for their grammar just because you don’t understand how to use the passive tense.

Now give me your ‘100’.

Last edited 25 days ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Simon
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 25, 2021 10:52 pm

OK I did get that one slightly wrong, but that wasn’t a lie.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
December 26, 2021 4:24 am

Oh yes, you are a liar and you just keep proving.

Simon
Reply to  2hotel9
December 28, 2021 11:06 am

Hows that Ford Lightening going Mr Honesty?

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
December 28, 2021 11:43 am

Ahhh, poor little simple minded still crying. Let us call the wambulance for you, sweety.

Simon
Reply to  2hotel9
December 28, 2021 1:26 pm

Mate you are the habitual liar, who after being caught red handed in a lie, still insists on calling others liars. I don’t think I’m the simple minded one. HELLO!!!!

Lrp
Reply to  Simon
December 25, 2021 2:59 pm

Try a bit of self awareness

2hotel9
Reply to  Lrp
December 26, 2021 4:25 am

It is fully aware of the lies it spews.

2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
December 26, 2021 4:23 am

Everything you post is a lie, lie spewing liar, except you are clearly filled with self hate so you hate at least one liar.

Simon
Reply to  2hotel9
December 28, 2021 1:27 pm

Thank you Mr Lightening, but I am not going to take a lecture from you about honesty any more than I would take one from Trump about fidelity.

Last edited 23 days ago by Simon
2hotel9
Reply to  Simon
December 28, 2021 6:36 pm

Poor little simple minded, did mummy leave you alone with her computer again?

Raven
December 25, 2021 6:45 am

Genuine question here; is it usual to consider a drought within a single year?

I ask because here in Oz we might talk about four year droughts or ten year droughts but not a drought attached to a single year.
When long droughts break, we see news footage of kids who’ve never seen water fall out of the sky before and jumping around in puddles etc. 

We probably have an official definition of ‘drought’ but Australia is a very dry continent so perhaps we just consider shorter spells as a dry year.

Gary Pearse
December 25, 2021 7:06 am

I toss this real fact check into the fray at appropriate times:
comment image

This is a sizable white spruce, still rooted, dated 5000ybp, that is just outside the Arctic town of Tuktuyaktuk in the coastal area of Canada’s far northwest. Today’s treeline is some 100km to the south. However, the modern white spruce of this size (yes, the same species) is several hundred km south of the modern treeline where the average temperature is ~5 C or more warmer than Tuk today. Given polar enhancement of 2x, this means that Global T 5000yrs ago was 2-3C warmer than today, well over the the temps where the planet is judged by alarmists to be toast!

Give BBC and Facebook this to fact check! This tree won’t be welcomed into the dendrocriminologists’ data base.

Steve Case
Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 25, 2021 10:35 am

 This tree won’t be welcomed into the dendrocriminologists’ data base.
________________________________________________________

Has anyone posted a guard around that tree?

IPCC News and views, sea levels
Did Australian Scientists and Students
Pull down this tree in the Maldives?

warwickhughes dot com slash blog slash ?p=118*

*Actual links tend to wind up in moderation.

Last edited 26 days ago by Steve Case
December 25, 2021 7:13 am

There is data to show British Columbia flooding is not due to changes in rainfall, damages were not unexpected, and risks with the dyke system were not adequately addressed.

Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Engineering Climate Datasets show that when recent data are added, rainfall intensities in BC have not increased on average for extreme short duration events: https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2020/07/can-we-use-daily-rainfall-models-to.html#:~:text=Given%20recent%20flooding,100%2Dyear%20intensities).

And annual maximum series for the province show locations with decreasing trends over periods of record as well: https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2020/07/can-we-use-daily-rainfall-models-to.html#:~:text=The%20following%20tables,trends%20in%20AMS.

While estimated damages are very high for 2021 (approx. $450M), BC’s historical flood/storm/water peril damages since the early 1980’s have been very low relative to its share of GDP, population, dwellings and infrastructure. The 2021 flood has now increased the expected annual damage statistics to be more in line with what should be expected and has occurred in other regions of Canada: https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2021/12/british-columbia-2021-flood-losses.html

Looking directly at streamflows, research has shown decreasing trends https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339489828_Detection_of_trends_in_flood_magnitude_and_frequency_in_Canada

“A total of 68 stations in Canada representing diverse hydrological conditions were studied by Burn et al. (2010) for detecting trends in extreme hydrological events for the period 1957–2006. It was concluded that peak annual flows are generally becoming smaller and earlier. Zhang et al. (2001) reported trends for 11 hydrometric variables for Canadian catchments and generally observed decreasing trends in streamflows for the period 1947–1996.Burn and HagElnur (2002) and Whitfield and Cannon (2000) observed major regional differences and variability of streamflow trends across Canada, with both increases and decreases in precipitation and streamflow for the periods 1946–1999 and 1976–1995, respectively. Burn and Whitfield (2016)examined changes in the flood regime for watersheds across Canada for the period 1961–2010. They concluded that reference hydrometric watersheds (catchments with pristine conditions and good quality data) exhibit decreasing trends inflood magnitude while non-reference hydrometric watersheds displayed increasing trends.”

Lastly, in a report earlier this year, Ebbwater Consulting warned the “current model for flood risk governance in B.C. is broken” (https://globalnews.ca/news/8397330/bc-flood-warnings-ignored/?utm_source=%40globalbc&utm_medium=Twitter) – see Ebbwater’s “Journalists’​ Guide to BC Flood Reports that No One Read….” : https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/journalists-guide-bc-flood-reports-one-read-ebbwater-consulting/ …. that includes the BBC

BC Rainfall Intensity Trends v2 to v3_1 Engineering Climate Datasets.JPG
griff
Reply to  Robert J Muir
December 26, 2021 1:39 am

The sheer amount of rainfall was off the scale…

That’s the issue.

and climate related

2hotel9
Reply to  griff
December 26, 2021 4:31 am

Wow, your total lack of ability to accept historical data at odds with your lies is quite breath taking, lie spewing lie. Hey! Don’t sweat it! Spewing lies is all you got so spew some more for us.

Richard M
Reply to  griff
December 26, 2021 8:59 am

Since almost all the warming over the past 25 years occurred during a one year period when the PDO went positive, how are the floods of 2021 tied into that warming? It was 7 years ago.

https://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/from:1997/to/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1997.33/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to/trend

James Kirk
December 25, 2021 7:44 am

1971? Weren’t we in the midst of Mann-caused global cooling climate change? The ice age cometh!

Bruce Cobb
December 25, 2021 10:22 am

It is the breathless, non-stop reporting and hype of weather that is unprecedented, not the weather itself.

2hotel9
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 26, 2021 4:35 am

24 hour “news” reporting is the lie spewing liars greatest weapon. They can convince plenty of poorly educated and easily lied to people of practically anything. Leftards love convincing such people the most idiotically stupid things are real and reality is false. Just look at griffie and simple minded in this very thread.

December 25, 2021 2:08 pm

Fact-Checking” means stopping facts before they reach the public.

Herbert
December 25, 2021 3:23 pm

As to the floods in central China, we were told the rains and flooding were a “once in a thousand year” downpour, with several hundred dead.
A quick Google search of “Flooding, Central China,1930’s” discloses that between July and November 1931 there were some 3.7 million deaths from flooding and subsequent disease and starvation.
This is rated as one of the worst disasters in human history.
We have apparently reached the point where the memory of the MSM does not extend beyond last year.

griff
Reply to  Herbert
December 26, 2021 1:40 am

Yes, the impact of the 1930s floods were widespread – but the issue for 2021 is the sheer amount of rainfall in a short time period – that’s what made it a 1 in 1,00 year event.

2021 is an acute problem, not a long lasting event

2hotel9
Reply to  griff
December 26, 2021 4:38 am

And there is that lie yet again. It has NEVER rained that much EVER. Except all those times it did. Please spew some more lies, lie spewing liar, I am enjoying them quite a bit this morning. Starting the day with a good laugh is always nice.

LdB
Reply to  griff
December 28, 2021 7:55 pm

FFS please explain how conclude that .. what you have a climate future ball now.

This is typical Griff dribble if they have excess rain in 2022 it’s proof of climate change if the don’t have excess it was proof 2021 was an act of climate change. Greentard dribble based on a preselected answer.

Neville
December 25, 2021 3:26 pm

Here’s a long list of COMING disasters over the last 50+years and OF COURSE none of these DISASTERS were true.
Yet we still seem to fall for their BS and CON TRICKS forever. Ehrlich dined out on his idiocy for half a century and YET some donkeys like the USA DEMs STILL believe this delusional nonsense?
So when do these fools start to THINK for themselves?

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/

WXcycles
December 25, 2021 6:37 pm

I would say the informal private website and public funded media censorship that has been occurring, has mostly been to suppress the most extreme lying ratbags on the internet who deliberately create and maintain extreme lies, to provoke psychological destabilization and disturbance in people (No, not a psychologist, just my observation of what was occurring, far too much).

I’m very glad there is a lot less of that now in the mainstream flow of information and blah-blah than there was say, 5 years ago.

Internet discourse has noticeably improved, IMHO, and there is much less interruption and interference in normal discussion via trolls adding idiocy and lies randomly into blog comment discussion.

And yes, we now have a problem with publicly funded ‘fact-checkers’, pompously doing almost exactly the same things, but formally and actually more insidiously to interfere with constructive factual discussions, inserting sly lies and fake ‘facts’, which they themselves create and also use in the same ways, as a lie-based click-bait, and completely unnecessary en-flaming of discussion, via lies, etc.

But as with all things, the process of weeding out the extremist ratbags and click-baiting pathological liars, and paranoid maniacs sprouting biased garbage, has been abused, and taken too far.

We just need to keep shaming the lying ‘fact-checkers’ now, and I expect discussions will become more viable than now.

I’ve completely given-up on the non-moderated internet, and sites that simply don’t bother to weed-out the nutcases, and the pathological liars promoting the unreal, the untested, and the melange of absolute drivel with fake sources, which get pushed into discussion, as a new version of a wacko ‘reality’.

The fact is that we actively limit what our children see, and can participate in, because they’re not ready for it, and not able to process it maturely in wider context. The sort of stuff I refer to can be, and often is very disturbing, and mentally affecting and distorting our values and potential, impair people and harming.

I see stuff that is real, and it disturbs me–real stuff, not lies. So the last thing I would want to do, is have a young mind bent, or damaged in ‘unbalancing’ ways, by that.

So what we do whether we want to or like to admit it, is we censor the content and access to content that our children see, so they’re not harmed or unbalanced and impaired by it.

If only the young Greta’s parents had done that, instead of deliberately doing the opposite, and thus destroyed her mind, her interpretive negative and fearful perceptions of the world, and damaged her potential to both be happy, and too constructively improve the future, for all, instead of limiting and reversing all the good being done in the world she hates and rejects. But her parents were no doubt already seriously damaged, impaired and judgement undermined by themselves. It is important to not have that perverting process snowball.

So this balancing is also a valid part of caring for hearts and minds, and our fellow persons that we don’t personally know, and making sure that we develop in healthy and ‘balanced’ ways. And yes, someone pointed out a few days ago, that ‘balance’ is a wholly human concept, not a real-world fact. And I entirely agree. However, that sort of thing is what makes humans very different to the animals without such facility, animals which literally eat each other, alive, and in the most extreme pain, with zero empathy and no facility for compassion or mercy, for what they do to each other to survive, etc.

We’re different to that, very different, and thank God, or the infinity that this natural facility emerges from, that we are so different to this, and we do understand the need for such ‘balance’, mercy, compassion, and care, for those we don’t even know. For we understand the effects, and want to make the world better for those that follow, even if they don’t understand yet, why we did it.

And your children will not understand why you censored what they see, and their access to a smart phone. But one day they will understand why you did that, and they will appreciate the implied love and care behind it, and they may even thank you for doing it.

So let’s also keep a sense of proportion about why some censorship is required and some access control is necessary and why checking facts are actually facts is important, and that ingrained ignorance at the BBC is just as likely there, as anywhere else.

Our responsibility is to make them understand they are also lost in a sea of enduring lies and science as a ‘philosophy’ (Love of Truth), and process of analytical method is how that has always been most successfully done.

And the liars are most successfully defeated by exposing and laughing at them. And the persistent ones with agendas, via ignoring them completely (i.e. personally censoring them and limiting access to our minds).

I hope 2022 is made much better than 2021, by people everywhere who seek to make the future better in truthful and balanced ways that are not always immediately clear as to why it is done that way.

So all the best to the non-animals in here, at WUWT who do this, day to day.

You are the best-of-the-best and for the best of all reasons, and reason itself.

Last edited 25 days ago by WXcycles
griff
Reply to  WXcycles
December 26, 2021 1:42 am

The climate information comes from published science, especially observation and reporting of actual recent climate change…

It isn’t invented and only originating from ‘some website’.

Unlike most skeptic information.

2hotel9
Reply to  griff
December 26, 2021 4:40 am

Wow, the lies just keep coming from you, lie spewing liar. You are on a roll this morning, been awhile. Did mum leave you alone with her computer again, or is she just passed out after her gentlemen callers all got done last night?

WXcycles
Reply to  griff
December 26, 2021 10:28 pm

Griff,

I’ve never had to deal with you directly before, but your basic problem is we actually lived through that period of the 1970s.

I can attest to that period from about Jan 1970 to about Jan 1980, being by far the most disturbed and energetic period of weather variability that I have ever experienced.

Unfortunately the author of the article neglected to mention Cyclone Tracy on Xmas day 1974, which utterly destroyed the small city of Darwin in the Northern Territory. It was literally completely destroyed, rendered uninhabitable by all but a tiny fraction of its former population. I went through a 160 kt Cat 4 in 1971 that was even more violent than Tracey, but it hit a remote town and didn’t really get counted. I also felt the effects of Cat 4 Cyclone Althea. I also felt the effects of tornadoes, and 9 water spouts in one day in Cairns, in the end of 1973. Many violent thunder storms, and then extraordinary genuine cold in the northern wet tropics zone in the years from 1973 to 1979, which BOM now seems to want to think didn’t happen, and could not possibly have occurred. But the people here who went through it, know that it did occur. This extraordinary violent weather and temp variability during the 1970s, and the contrasting relative lack of that, ever since, is why I follow the climate and weather discussion closely.

I would like to understand, why and how those things occurred, and then suddenly stopped. I’m also astonished and rather disgusted that the truth of this occurrence has been sacrificed at the alter of ideology funding greed and political correctness, to try to pretend its reality away.

And I’m particularly disappointed by the quacks, like yourself, who want to pretend we’re in an end-of-the-world “climate crisis”, of endless “extreme weather”, when nothing could be any further from the truth.

And here you are trying to re-write history with laughable lies, to the people who lived through it?

I don’t normally pay attention to you, nor know anything about your ‘story’, but you say such hysterical and untrue things that have recently pondered if Griff=Greta. But it’s much more likely you’re far less than even that much of an angry uninformed agenda-driven not much.

The 1970’s rapid-fire extreme weather sequencing was a period which made a strong impression on a then young and inexperienced mind, I was hovering up all that occurred. I had some form of traumatic stress response to some of it, which caused me to become obsessive about weather forecasts. It lead me to take a much more active interest in what caused such a decade of violent weather to occur, and then, the next decade became comparatively calm. And the 1990s was even calmer. I was actually more then a bit frustrated by the lack of real weather extremes and the lack of cyclone and the lack of violent storms.

There was the 10th of Jan, 1998 Ex-cyclone Sid, rain event in Townsville, which was 760 mm of rain, in under 5 hours, though BOM now says it was less than that. But I was there, I remember, and being a bit obsessive about weather, I logged it all down. And that’s why I can quote dates of events like that. I can even tell you that it started right on 6:50 PM, and more-or-less tappered out after midnight.

The entire hiatus period was almost nothing at all in terms of significant weather variability, except for the extreme rains of 2010-2011. The same period in which one of your particularly dim-witted and always-wrong fellow-travelers, a stupid false-profit, prophesied that the rains would never fall again, and that the dams would never fill again. And foolish governments listened to that idiot, and built 3 billion dollars worth of desalination plants that never got used in anger for the intended purpose. That was when a billion bucks was real money.

The wettest 12 months in Australian history is what occurred instead. And Feb 2011 culminated with a genuine large mature Cat-4 Cyclone Yasi, striking immediately north of where I live.

So I’m very familiar with the events of the 1970s, and the events of more recent decades, so I will say, for the benefit of young-ish people reading this, who did not live through this, that the weather of the past 35 years has been particularly uneventful and boring for a ‘weather-obsessive’, compared to the genuine crisis-like weather I lived through repeatedly during the 1970s.

[Despite this being addressed to you, Griff, I’m not writing it for your edification or benefit as I realize you’re a lost-cause when it comes to truth and you are merely an ignorant or lying sock-puppet, a joke or clown parody, you can not possibly be taken seriously. And in that sense you’re in a category of just one. Because the other people who disagree with the general thrust of counter-AGW arguments, can at least can be taken semi-seriously and engaged in a discussion of some relative value.]

The cyclone I went through in 1971 almost killed my entire family once , and it almost killed me on three separate occasions, within 24 hours. You cannot imagine how unlikely my survival was. I have not experienced anything like it since. The BOM ‘record’ of the event today is an absolute joke. The eye was measured at 925 millibars, the CDO was reported as 10 degrees of latitude across on satellite images, it had forecast winds of 160 knots, and full of lightning as it came ashore, indicating it was also strengthening. Physically gigantic cyclones like that can occur, they just don’t occur very often.

In fact, this cyclone the struck on the 14th of Feb 1971, was and still is the only tropical cyclone in the Australian cyclone log that was given two names. This is because when it formed over the Arafura sea, it was so large that the Australian Met Bureau of the time decided it was much to big to be one cyclone, so they issued warnings for “Tropical Cyclone Sheila”, and “Tropical Cyclone Sophie”. Then subsequent imagery made clear that it was clearly one enormous cyclone’s CDO and eye, so they then shortened the name to “Tropical Cyclone Sheila-Sophie”. And then they changed it again to, “Tropical Cyclone Sheila”, because they did not meld, and there never was a, Tropical Cyclone Sophie at all.

This sort of massive radius, 925 millibar cat-4 cyclone does not occur any more today, most people alive have never seen one. And there has not been one like it in the Australian region since. But these can and do occur, and during the 1970s some really gigantic cyclones/hurricanes/typhoons did occur. The trees after this cyclone were all smashed off from about 40 cm above the ground, and the bark had been sand-blasted off, due to many hours of exposure, a white pulp was all the was left. we didn’t have to clean up any detritus, because all of it was blown away.

Severe Tropical Cyclone Sheila-Sophie[edit]

Category 5 severe tropical cyclone (Australian scale)

Category 4 tropical cyclone (SSHWS)

Duration January 29 – February 4 Peak intensity 215 km/h (130 mph) (10-min) 925 hPa (mbar)

Shiela-Sophie, 29 January to 6 February 1971 crossed the coast near Roebourne, Western Australia, while doing some damage.

I was in Roebourne when Shiela crossed the coast, and this report even has the dates wrong!

A forgotten cyclonic giant, “Tropical Cyclone Sheila-Sophie”, 14th Feb, 1971, as Cat 4 came ashore with 160 kt winds, almost a Cat 5:
comment image

In fact three cyclones hit WA in the preceding 5 week period and this report is using the date from one of the smaller, earlier storms that cross prior.
comment image

The actual crossing date of Tropical Cyclone Sheila was (Valentines day) Feb 14th, 1971, to Feb 15th. That’s how poorly these early 1970s major weather event records have been maintained. They also appear to have used the wind-speed estimate of an earlier cyclone as well. But you can see from the image that when it got fully on shore, it covered all of Western Australia and parts of Northern Territory and South Australia as well. It exited the south of WA into the Great Australian Bight still packing Cat-1 level winds, then it went through Bass Strait as a large subtropical storm, and slammed into New Zealand.

But you wouldn’t know this, any of it, if you just looked at the official BOM cyclone record today. It was not quite a big, and not as strong as “Typhoon Tip” when it was at its peak, which is the largest cyclone (during 1979, btw) ever observed, but Sheila was a cyclone with similarly massive rotation scale and wind-field. TC Yasi, in 2011 (which I also went through), was also a very large cat-4 cyclone with a 929 millibar eye. But even it was not as big or as strong as Sheila’s incredible CDO and wind-field. People in Roebourne and Wickham (and even Port Headland, 160 km to the east) during that 24 hour period, will never forget this gigantic tropical cyclone Sheila. But BOM has forgotten this staggering 1971 cyclone and its scale adn why it had two names.

It’s simply a non-event now! It’s almost certain no one else reading this ever heard of it! But look at the scale of that storm in the image. I’ve been through other strong cyclones, but nothing came close to this early to 1970’s period for very destructive weather events. The entire 40 years of slow warming and progressive calming that followed since were as nothing, in comparison.

To claim we are now in a ‘weather crisis’, is the most absurd and obscene of lies!

And thank god that we live in a comparatively calm weather event environment, right now, where such great cyclones rarely happen.

But from what I have seen since 2019, it appears that this wonderful relative weather calmness is coming to and end, it appears a cooling weather-cycle phase has recommenced and this will again move toward genuine rapid-fire weather crises once more, it may take 2 more decades to get really rapid again, but I may still be around long enough to see that period play-out too.

This is what I would want a younger reader, who didn’t experience the 1970s, to understand. that you have lived through a period of gentle and placid weather so far, and it can become much more turbulent.

This weather of the warming phase from 1982 to 2019 (which is when I see it as having changed to cooling again) has been a complete doddle. The cooling-phase will be the real education and shock process, about what weather events and enhanced variability can become.

The likes of Griff are ignorant false-prophets, or the blind deliberately misleading the blind, but both shall fall into the ditch.

If you’re 40 years old or younger, you’ve never experienced true high weather variability, but you will and it will get shockingly cold too. People in tropical Brazil discovered this, just a few months back actually. This sort of even will become commonplace, 2 to 3 decades from now, so don’t be surprised by this.

And don’t be surprised when it turns out that all the idiots at the IPCC are 100% wrong about everything they’ve ever claimed or predicted.

That will occur too.

But this is Tropical Cyclone (Typhoon) ‘Tip’, in 1979, the biggest cyclonic storm ever observed.
comment image

Tip was not that much bigger than Cyclone Shiela-Sophie actually, but no one knows about Cyclone Sheila-Sophie today, because, thank god, it struck a very remote Pilbara township, that had a few shelter buildings made to withstand a category-5 cyclone’s direct hit.

So don’t tell stinking lies about weather events during the 1970s Griff, you have no clue whatsoever about what really serious weather is, especially in terms of a serious ‘crisis’ level of continuous high energy event. There were 3 preceding significant cyclones within this same Pilbara area inside of 5 weeks, and the last one was the largest cyclone that’s hit Australia, since the advent of satellite imagery.

Griff, pull your head in mate.

Sophie_1971-02-02.png
Last edited 24 days ago by WXcycles
John Boland
December 25, 2021 9:18 pm

Say I set up 50 lego towers in front of a fan and 25 blow over, then I set up 100 and 50 blow over. The BBC would report an increase in the power of my fan (adjusting damage for inflation to make me think they have analyzed things properly).

December 26, 2021 12:26 am

Hmmm…

Too bad IPCC’s AR5 Report even admits and virtually all empirical evidence show, there have been no increasing trends of severity or frequency of the following weather events for the past 100 years: hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons, floods, droughts, tornadoes, subtropical storms, thunderstorms, and hail..

“Follow the science”, which, ironically, Leftists refuse do…

griff
December 26, 2021 1:34 am

That’s a succinct list of the extreme weather events caused by climate change this year!

There were weather events in 1971, but if you look at the scale of them there were NOT record busting, reaching new levels, 1 in 1,000 year events like most of those on the 2021 list.

2hotel9
Reply to  griff
December 26, 2021 4:42 am

And you finish out with yet another lie, artfully spewed by the well trained lie spewing liar. Good job, Buddy!

leitmotif
December 26, 2021 8:17 am
%d bloggers like this: