Inevitable really, but the Daily Sceptic‘s recent article on the World Climate Declaration (WCD) has attracted a green-activist ‘fact check’, and on that flimsy basis has been labelled “false information” by Facebook. On August 18th we published an article reporting that scientists across the world had declared there was no climate emergency. We added that the assertions that humans cause most or all climate change and that the science behind this claim is ‘settled’ have been dealt a savage blow by the WCD. The lead signatory is the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever, and he is followed by over 1,100 scientists and professionals. No fewer than 235 professors have signed the Declaration. Our story on the WCD went viral on social media, and is one of the most widely read articles we have ever published. The article and the WCD have now been branded “incorrect” by the green activist blog Climate Feedback.
The blog’s author writes: “Natural (non-human) drivers of climate change have been mostly stable since the onset of modern warming and all the available scientific evidence implicates human greenhouse gas emissions as the primary culprit.”
To claim that the climate has not undergone any natural change for almost 200 years is nonsense. Not a scrap of evidence can be submitted to back up this proposition, and it flies in the face of all climate science. The climate has changed on Earth since gas first made an appearance in the atmosphere. Climate Feedback’s claim is in fact a denial of climate change.
The second part of the charge sheet runs: “Scientific evidence also indicates that climate change is contributing to intensified or more frequent natural disasters such as heatwaves, drought and heavy rainfall.”
Again show us the evidence for this outlandish claim. Not a single scientific paper, not a scintilla of scientific proof, can attribute a one off bad (extreme) weather event to a change in long-term climate caused by humans burning fossil fuel. Any evidence supplied arises from climate models – evidence being a polite term for fanciful and wishful thinking.
A great deal of social media criticism of the WCD is reserved for the signatories. Their skills and interests range over many disciplines including pure science, such as chemistry and physics, along with useful related fields such as geology and paleoclimatology. The Climate Feedback review highlights the involvement of lead signatory Professor Antonino Zichichi, who is said to have links to the influential libertarian U.S. Heartland think tank. Furthermore, it is said he does not have a background in climate science. The attempted slur is interesting since Climate Feedback provides a link that does nothing more than present the professor’s impressive scientific and academic credentials. Zichichi “does not have a background in climate science”, it is said. In fact, Professor Zichichi is a physicist of immense international standing. He is credited with a number of scientific discoveries including nuclear anti-matter, served as President of the World Federation of Scientists and was awarded Italy’s highest honour, the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic.
But, obviously, when dealing with the settled science of climate change, Zichichi has spent a lifetime studying the wrong sort of physics.
Timothy Osborn, a climate professor at the University of East Anglia, claims that all natural warming stopped by the late 1800s, although, confusingly, he adds that natural factors, “would have caused a slight cooling over the last 70 years”. Such certitude of course doesn’t arise from the scientific evidence – there isn’t any to back up this absurd claim.
Osborn continues with his tale:
Scientists estimate the effects of various potential climate drivers [influences] by running model simulations, mathematical representations of the climate system. The effectiveness of climate models is evaluated by their ability to capture real world climate trends. Models used by the IPCC have been faithfully predicting climate since the 1970s, which gives researchers confidence in their performance.
In fact, as the above graph shows, “real world climate trends” haven’t got a great track record when it comes to accurately forecasting future temperatures. The thick green line above shows the satellite record, the other lines the predications of climate models. From the turn of the century, when green activists went to war on fossil fuel, the predictions of thermogeddon have become increasingly detached from reality.
Finally, the ‘fact check’ disputes the statement in the WCD that there is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying weather events. This is said to be at odds with the most recent IPCC report, which states in its “Summary for Policymakers” that “human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe”. As the Daily Sceptic has noted, these ‘attribution’ claims are mostly the product of climate models, slammed by the WCD as “not remotely plausible as global policy tools”. Meanwhile, the IPCC summary for policymakers has recently been criticised as “government-dictated findings”. Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen of Princeton and MIT respectively, laid that charge, noting that an IPCC rule states that all summaries must be approved by governments. “Climate science is awash with manipulated data, which provides no reliable scientific evidence,” they said.
Academics around the world are becoming increasingly frustrated and angry at the politicisation of science in the interest of promoting the command-and-control Net Zero agenda. The science is not settled – far from it. The WCD is a powerful fightback and is attracting worldwide interest and debate. This latest so-called fact check from Climate Feedback is just a recitation of a political narrative.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor
Stop Press: Watch Chris talk to TalkTV’s Kevin O’Sullivan about the World Climate Declaration.
A coin flip is usually random.
Except when you have a grant that requires finding that humanity is to blame. The popular “climate scientists” and corrupted politicians use the two-headed coin that always comes up evil humans.
I do believe that there are evil humans and ignorant humans. Unfortunately, those groups are pulling the strings on too many activities.
Flipping any coin, even alleged random algorithms/code, is too dangerous for alarmists. Truly random will not fit their beliefs.
Eventually… Not necessarily in the short term.
It’s still random in the short run. Having 3 or 4 heads or tails in a row doesn’t violate the rules of randomness.
I don’t “do” Facebook. Is it not possible to engage with the operators of Facebook and Climate Feedback and ask for their reasons for labelling the article “false information” and “incorrect”?
Given that Facebook accepted “guidance” from the FBI on the Hunter Biden laptop story, what other political guidance is Facebook accepting from other agencies or politicians? Various politicians argue for various restrictions on social media, so how much is defensive sucking up to those politicians on other issues?
Facebook is CIA. What, you thought Mark Zuckerberg, a college dropout was a tech genius or something?
I don’t really understand what the CIA or FBI do, and thought that Mr. Zuckenburg was a business man. I just thought that it might be possible that the operators of these things might be reasoned with and wonder why not.
CIA- like MI6; FBI- like Scotland Yard, except for federal
crimes. They & federal agencies have been weaponized to
further the left’s agenda to criminalize/censor political
opponents. MSM/Big Tech are 24/7 propaganda with farce-
I mean fact- checkers to do their dirty work. With such goals,
any thought of fairness/being reasonable is long gone. Truth
& reality are what they claim them to be at that moment!
One must defend the goose that lays the golden eggs – or in this case the turkey that lays pyrite eggs.
I forget, how many scientist are there in a “consensus”.
One, if said ‘scientist’ is a climatard alarmist one!
Barely an hour ago my son said to me that all the blame for the coming food shortages is going to be attributed to climate change and none on the foolish energy policies of governments. Anticipating this, we need to try and pre-empt the statements of alarmists by spelling out their arguments and answering them – before they start making a scene.
Your son is right – he understands how this works.
Perhaps start saying FEAR of climate change have resulted in rash policies resulting in food shortages. The solution is, don’t panic, address and resolve problems as they happen.
If we could convince enough people of that, everything else becomes moot. It won’t matter how, when, or if climate changed.
Michael, you are blessed to have a son whose brains have not been corrupted by the media and his schools. Job well done, sir.
Nothing but rantings of fear mongers and useful idiots backed by a complicit media. What started as a bum walking around with a sandwich board announcing “the end is near” has metastasized into a global narrative that is draining the world of progress.
Great chart! Being out of range from even the lowest ECS the IPCC accepts invalidates the “models are accurate” lie big time.
Unfortunately a majority of the population are scientifically illiterate and believe the blatant lies being promoted.
I’ve been pointing out for a long time that 50% of the CMIP5 has been out of range vs observations since 1999 but people don’t believe their lying eyes.
“… all the available scientific evidence [that we chose to look at] implicates human greenhouse gas emissions as the primary culprit.”
In any other discipline cherry picking is considered scientific fraud. You can’t even work as a climate scientist if you mention contrary data.
It should be pronounced with a long ‘a’ sound as in ‘faked check.’
Were climate simply an academic matter of questionable predictions made about a wickedly complex problem, we could all just sit and argue to our hearts’ delights. However, extreme, implausible projections are then used to drive extreme “emergency” declarations and “urgent”, implausible and unnecessary measures (e.g., Net Zero within 10-30 years; massive waste of resources and ecosystem devastation employing low density, weather-dependent and costly wind and solar power). The supposed “cure” is worse than the alleged “disease.”
When the actual climate does not obey the implausible projections/predictions, the only card to play that remains for the climate activists is to make it appear that ordinary weather variability is, if we just look out our windows, somehow visible proof of dire effects of so-far mild change. In the process, the global power play aims to impoverish and eventually exterminate billions of souls and banish liberty and freedom.
We had a drought and notably hot weather in early summer in Texas this year. Unusual, but it was somewhat to be expected being a La Niña year. Agriculture had a tough go of it, and a few town water supplies came close to implementing their drought contingency plans. But not to worry, August, typically our hottest and driest month, has been unseasonably cool and wet. Instead of late-August brown and crispy going into September, everything has sprung back to life. Grass is green and luxuriant and I have to mow weekly again, in between rainstorms.
Obviously the drought was global warming, and this late season rain and cooler temperatures is just weather.
I wonder if huge emotional and financial investment in climate emergency totally blinds people and institutional reality.
I don’t wonder about that at all, Ira. Of course it does.
We all need to face the fact that before CAGW hype and its “fact checkers”, nothing was natural.
I agree with the rebuttal but the WCD is not an signatory composed of more 1,000 professionals. I tried looking some of them up and couldn’t find them. Also why are there radiologists and fisherman in that list? That completely embarrasses the realist community.
Are you implying that fishermen are not realists or professionals?
Try the Bering Sea or the North Sea in winter.
Ah right. I do like the idea of the WCD however it needs to be legitimate signatures not random names that you can’t find. Same goes for the Oregon Petition.
You might need to expand your horizons a little bit. I have a BSEE. In getting that I had to study thermodynamics (very important, esp in minaturized equipment), radiation, nuclear physics (as a power minor), and numerous other disciplines. You would be amazed at how many electronic sensors depend on pressure and volume of gases and liquids! There are *lots* of people around that have studied many different subjects but are not “climate scientists”. Remember, many of those “climate scientists” are nothing more than computer programmers and have no more scientific knowledge than the next person.
My, my… that’s a [welcome] lot of heretics.
Funnily enough, in the propagandasphere it doesn’t get a mention
Facebook admits the truth: ‘Fact checks’ are really just (lefty) opinion
12/14/21
https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/facebook-admits-the-truth-fact-checks-are-really-just-lefty-opinion/
Facebook finally admitted the truth: The “fact checks” that social media use to police what Americans read and watch are just “opinion.”
That’s thanks to a lawsuit brought by celebrated journalist John Stossel, which has exposed the left’s supposed battle against “misinformation” as a farce.
Stossel posted a pair of videos that touched the third rail of liberal politics — climate change. Neither questioned whether climate change is real, but each talked about other issues, namely forest management and using technology to adapt. Yet the third party that Facebook contracts to review these pieces, Science Feedback, flagged them as “false,” or our favorite, “lacking context.”
Why? Science Feedback didn’t like Stossel’s “tone.” That is, you can’t write anything about climate change unless you say it’s the worst disaster in the history of humanity and we must spend trillions to fight it.
For this, Facebook bans or minimizes Stossel’s reporting, depriving him of readers and revenue.
…The fact-check industry is funded by liberal moguls such as George Soros, government-funded nonprofits and the tech giants themselves. The checkers are not the unbiased arbiters of truth; they are useful distractions, groups Facebook can use to absolve itself of responsibility. Free speech be damned.
Here is my favorite Facebook “Fact Check.”
BMJ gets fact checked
2/7/22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMf-Zq7xJcY
FB Fact checkers claim “BMJ is a news blog.”
BMJ published their first article in 1840 on general anesthetic, chloroform. In 1867, they published and article by Joseph Lister on Antiseptic Principle In The Practice of Surgery. You have heard of Lister, I hope.
1950, BMJ published the first study on smoking causing lung cancer.
Once again, so called environmentalists claim human behavior is not natural. But when you ask them if it was divine intervention that causes the behavior, they deny that too.
Since there are no other explanations, their entire philosophy and world view is bankrupt.
Models used by the IPCC have been faithfully predicting climate since the 1970s,
lol do they not understand those are backfit? the IPCC didn’t exist in the 1970s
backfitting is hardly impressive, as Feynman said give me three parameters and I’ll give you an elephant, give me four and I’ll make it wag its tail… these models have dozens
and look, they actually can’t even backfit properly
what does fit nicely on a centerline are models with an ECS of around 1.2 to 1.7
which means we’ve wasted trillions of dollars preparing for the wrong crisis
as with the FBI sitting on Hunter’s laptop, everyone knows this game is crooked but few are willing to pay the political price of admitting it
“Timothy Osborn, a climate professor of the University of East Anglia….” – don’t bother reading any further!
Timothy Osborn has been lying for decades.
No natural climate change in the models for almost 50 years.
This is how you know we skeptics are (slowly) winning. The other side gets ever more ridiculous out of growing desperation.
If winning means being able to say “I told you so” after these idiotic policies lead to widespread blackouts and famine, I’d hate to see losing.
Given that every high school “science” teacher is a member of the green clergy and almost everyone under 30 fervently believes anything this church emits, we need a new strategy.
We don’t know what caused the Medieval, Roman, Minoan warm periods, nor any of the other warm or cold periods over the last 5000 years. However, you can rest assured, that whatever these causes were, they all stopped dead the instant man started adding CO2 to the atmosphere. /sarc
The sacred models have spoken.
200 years is an absurdly short period. Try just a wee bit more at 400 years and the period starts with emergence from the Little Ice Age. Try 4,000 years and sea levels were 1.5 metres higher back then so there must have been a change since (see the reports on Narrabeen Man). Go back a more meaningful period like 20,000 years and everything happening today starts to look stunningly puny. Go back a few hundred million years and we are clearly very cold right now.
Don’t you know that picking any period that doesn’t support the AGW narrative has been defined as cherry picking?
He lost me at “climate change has been stable”.
Ironic for the fact that we don’t have temperature data that NOAA/NWS trusts.
Otherwise, the data would not need adjustment.
Unvalidated climate models are useless. They can’t predict next year’s temperature, let alone 2100’s temperature.
An unvalidated flight model is only good for showing that an airplane is safe to take into flight test and to predict what should happen during a flight test maneuver. If a flight’s result are not close to the prediction, then testing stops until why the results are different can be determined.
Once a flight model is validated, it can be used to produce a flight manual that the pilots can use to determine how much fuel they’ll need for a flight, how long a flight will take and how high and fast they’ll be flying.
The unvalidate climate models can’t be use to predict anything, nor used to explain the weather.
To me the climate model are demonstrably worse the unvalidated. Unless you refer to some trade term?
I think they are falsified. The real world develops differently than the model runs – significantly less warming. Saying the models should form the basis for policy and spending rather than real world development is just ridiculous. And I so don’t care if you call the model runs projections rather than predictions!
If a model doesn’t follow what it’s supposed to be a model of then it is – at best – a failed experiment. It should only be used to make a better model…. .
As is becoming increasing evident from the empirical data, there are no data showing a man-made climate catastrophe…
All climate data show we’ve enjoyed about +1C of beneficial warming recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) in 1850, of which, CO2 forcing has perhaps contributed 0.5C (perhaps less) of the total.
Moreover, even IPCC’s AR5 Report admits there have been no increasing global trends of severe weather incidence or severity over the past 100 years for: hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, thunderstorms, droughts, floods, tornadoes, tropical storms, subtropical storms, and hail, so where is the catastrophe?
Ironically, the increase in CO2 has been boon for all life on earth due to: 15% increase of crop yields from CO2 fertilization, CO2 has increased plants’ drought resistance, slightly warmer global temperatures have extended growing seasons, greatly increased arable land area in Northern latitudes, made winters less severe, reduced winter heating costs, slightly increased global precipitation from increased ocean evaporation, decreased exposure deaths, etc.
The disparity between CMIP6 computer model projections vs, UAH6.0 global temperature anomalies already exceeds 2 standard deviations for a statistically significant duration, so CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypothesis.
Regardless, Leftist global governments wish to waste $quadrillions of taxpayer money by impossibly trying switch from a fossil fuel global economy to a wind/solar economy, which will, ironically, be a terrible catastrophe leading to deaths of millions of people if they continue with their disconfirmed CAGW hoax policies..
Leftists have lost their collective minds…
Don’t worry: The pragmatic developing world will be leading in the future. Learn Mandarin.
I don’t like Climate Feedback, I don’t think they are honest.
If carbon credits are a complete flop and the deplorables don’t like freezing in the dark then…wait for it…drum roll….NATURE CREDITS!
‘Nature credits’ could make Australia the ‘Green Wall Street’ for the world, Tanya Plibersek says (msn.com)
Get in early lefties as this will be bigger than crypto!
Now they’re just lying on purpose.
The propaganda is really getting bad. I live in the bay area in California and the weather stations and CMS boards on the freeways are warning of an extreme heat event. Warning people to not use electricity between 4 pm and 9 pm today. The temp will max out at 92 degrees F today. Not exactly a devestating extreme heat event and not unusual for this time of year. This is all brand new green propaganda.