A Note to The Guardian – Opinion Is NOT Science

Originally appeared at ClimateREALISM

A recent article in the newspaper The Guardian reports that some of the ”world’s top climate scientists” believe that disaster is soon to occur due to what they claim will be an additional degree of warming on the planet. This is a false narrative. The earth has experienced similar temperatures in the past without disastrous consequences. In addition, one should note that opinion when it comes to climate science has had a terrible track record.

The opinion piece, titled “World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5C target,” starts off with gloom and doom in the first couple of paragraphs:

Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit would be met.

Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts, and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods, and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.

First, as Climate Realism has previously discussed, here, for instance, the 1.5°C so-called limit is an arbitrarily made-up threshold. There is no scientific evidence that surpassing the 1.5℃ politically established amount of warming will result in worsening extreme weather events. What’s true of the 1.5℃ threshold is equally true of the 2°C limit, as Roger Pielke Jr., Ph.D. explains in his article, The Two Degree Temperature Target is Arbitrary and Untethered.

In The Guardian article, the opinion of “climate experts” suggests that disasters are afoot, with experts telling the paper that “massive preparations to protect people from the worst of the coming climate disasters were now critical.”

Leticia Cotrim da Cunha, at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, said: “I am extremely worried about the costs in human lives.”

“I am convinced that we have all the solutions needed for a 1.5C path and that we will implement them in the coming 20 years,” said Henry Neufeldt, at the U.N.’s Copenhagen Climate Centre. “But I fear that our actions might come too late and we cross one or several tipping points.”

What’s ironic, is that both The Guardian and those “climate experts” have missed the fact that in Europe, both the 1.5° and 2°C “limits” have already been surpassed, with no deleterious effects.

Below in Figure 1 is the Berkeley Earth average surface temperature record for Europe since about 1780. Europe is a good location to analyze, because some of the longest continuous temperature records are from Europe. It shows that not just 1.5°C, but 2.0°C of warming has already occurred.

Figure 1. (click to enlarge) Berkeley Earth average European temperature showing a 2.0°C rise since about 1820. Source: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/europe Annotated by Anthony Watts

Claims that reaching such temperatures supposedly driven by increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere are causing or will cause disasters, such as climate tipping points, have been repeatedly debunked at Climate Realismnot a single one of those predictions has come true.

Also, Cotrim da Cunha’s stated worry that warming will result in more humans dying is belied by the fact that research shows that 10 to 17 time more people die of cold than heat, and that as the Earth has warmed the number of people dying from temperature related illnesses has fallen dramatically. 

Given that track record, it hardly seems likely that some additional warming will result in disasters. According to a 2023 study by the University of California Santa Cruz, Earth has experienced higher CO2 levels and warmer temperature in the past, as seen in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2. Temperatures and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide over the past 66 million years. Bottom numbers indicate millions of years in the past; right-hand numbers, carbon dioxide in parts per million. Hotter colors indicate distinct periods of higher temperatures; deeper blues, lower ones. The solid zigzagging line charts contemporaneous carbon dioxide levels; shaded area around it reflects uncertainty in the curve. (Adapted from CenCO2PIP, Science 2023)

Earth survived, and history shows that humans are highly adaptable, thus the alarm over missing some arbitrary climate target temperatures we’ve already reached is both unjustified and moot.

What we have here is nothing more than an opinion poll of people whose entire careers are built upon hyping climate catastrophe, whose and reputations will be destroyed if the climate crisis narrative is untrue.

Scientific thinking and practice involves forming testable hypotheses, deciding how to test those hypotheses, doing the tests and analyzing the results to formulate proof and test theory. The claims of climate catastrophes, when they have been tested by experience and time, have proven false. And the future disastrous climate scenarios the experts are forecasting can’t be confirmed outside of the climate models that the self-same experts reference and rely upon to for their opinions. Opinion about science is not science at all but a belief.

This Guardian article is not news, but rather simply gives voice to so-called “experts,” whose past claims about the future are one long train of failed predictions. The Guardian has proven time and again that when it comes to “reporting” on climate change, it and its writers are shameless promoters of the climate crisis narrative which has no basis in evidence or data.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 30 votes
Article Rating
86 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mr.
May 11, 2024 6:19 am

The Guardian epitomizes what Christopher Hitchens wrote about in his book about the Clintons –
“Nobody Left To Lie To”

Old.George
May 11, 2024 6:35 am

1.5 degrees was pulled out of … ________. A SWAG at best.
And even then the data shows that past rises above that were apparently survivable. Indeed, we thrived.

Reply to  Old.George
May 11, 2024 12:52 pm

Wasn’t it pulled from the nether regions by one of the inmates at Potsdam asylum ?

Reply to  Old.George
May 11, 2024 2:32 pm

The temperature her went up by more than 10 degrees in a couple of days, no catastrophe here, yes I know it’s just weather.

Reply to  Nansar07
May 12, 2024 9:51 am

Here in New England, we’re nearly halfway through the Merry Month of May, and I still have to wear long underwear every day to keep from keeling over from hypothermia whenever I step outside. Every time I hear a distant rumble, I’m afraid it’s another continent-sized glacier grinding its way down here from Quebec,

E. Schaffer
May 11, 2024 6:59 am

So far this year Austria has been 4.2°C warmer than the 1961-1990 baseline. It is up from +2.4 and +2.6 the two previous years. We could discuss the details, like this is not relative to “preindustrial” or that the data will have some heat island effect bias, but either way it is some healthy warming.

The question however has to be, why it is so concentrated in the NH, and especially in regions with intense air traffic.

comment image

The “consensus science” narrative on heating GHGs and cooling aerosols specifically will not work to explain the NH warming pattern. If you take AR6 forcing estimates, they look this on a global scale..

comment image

But once you restrict them to the NH alone, with its dominant share in anth. aerosols, you get something like this..

comment image

It is completely inconsistent with actual temperature records. If aerosols worked like the IPCC suggests, we should only have had cooling up to the 1970s.

The only way to get this straight is by allowing a large forcing by aviation induced cirrus clouds, while giving up the tight GHG/aerosol metric. Of course aviation induced cirrus (like cirrus in general) are so effective in heating the climate, because they add optical thickness to the atmosphere just where it is coldest..

comment image

Scissor
Reply to  E. Schaffer
May 11, 2024 7:18 am

Your problem is that you want to analyze data and derive a rational hypothesis instead of presenting only data that supports the IPCC narrative.

James Snook
Reply to  E. Schaffer
May 11, 2024 7:27 am

Outside my area of expertise, but surely the same aviation induced cirrus clouds reflect solar radiation during the day, resulting in a cooling effect (you can feel it as con trails coalesce on a sunny day). By far the greatest density of air travel in the Northern Hemisphere and hence this reflective component, is during the day, but some con trails will be created at night and clouds may linger at night, with both reflecting LWR.

The question seems to be, what is the Net effect of con trails. Is it really significant in either direction?

Reply to  James Snook
May 11, 2024 12:58 pm

The whole AGW thing has left one great big CON-trail. !

E. Schaffer
Reply to  James Snook
May 11, 2024 3:21 pm

That’s the easiest question, and there is “consensus”. The warming exceeds the cooling momentum by about a 2:1 ratio.

MarkW
Reply to  E. Schaffer
May 12, 2024 8:32 am

There is a consensus, all the people who are paid to believe that global warming is a problem, believe that global warming is a problem.

Outside those who are paid to believe, not so much.

Reply to  James Snook
May 12, 2024 6:51 pm

I think the general understanding is that low and middle clouds tend to reflect Solar radiation and high clouds (cirrus, cirrostratus, and maybe cirrocumulus) tend to trap radiation. General understanding can be wrong.

Reply to  E. Schaffer
May 11, 2024 8:48 am

“The question however has to be….”
_______________________________________________________________

The question needs to be, “Is a warmer world a problem?”

Considering that the IPCC’s AR5; Chapter ten; Page 750; pdf 3 says:

“Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are projected to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures, leading to a decrease in diurnal temperature range. Decreases in frost days are projected to occur almost everywhere in the middle and high latitudes, with a comparable increase in growing season length.”

Questions about temperature changes and the relationship to geography, air traffic and the hem length of women’s skirts, is of academic interest only.

James Snook
Reply to  Steve Case
May 11, 2024 10:56 am

You are right of course.

It’s the equivalent of Theologians debating how many Angels could balance on a pin head and just as relevant to everyday life.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Steve Case
May 12, 2024 6:10 pm

…and pirates. You left out pirates.

Reply to  Steve Case
May 12, 2024 6:53 pm

“. . . and the hem length of women’s skirts, is of academic interest only.”

Speak for yourself!

Reply to  E. Schaffer
May 11, 2024 9:42 am

If your hypothesis is right then the Covid lockdown and the unspellable Icelandic volcano should have caused a cooling in the NH.
I’ve not heard of that happening.

MarkW
Reply to  MCourtney
May 12, 2024 8:33 am

They did a study of the US after the 911 lockdowns, they found that they US warmed up.

Reply to  E. Schaffer
May 11, 2024 12:56 pm

UAH NoPol since 2000..

GISS-dusting, will almost certainly be using town thermometers heavily tainted by expanding town populations.

UAH-NoPol-2023
Peter Barrett
Reply to  E. Schaffer
May 11, 2024 2:10 pm

This “problem” will disappear with the advent of battery powered flight.
No time soon then.

May 11, 2024 7:52 am

How is it even possible to derive an “average global temperature?” The planet has about 197-million square miles of surface area and if there are 100,000 fully functioning data collection stations, it means there’s a single station for every 1,970 square miles (50 mi x 39.4 mi). I just don’t see how it is scientifically possible to actually extract a meaningful “average global temperature,” even with today’s technology, much less the technology prior to 1979.

Reply to  jcdntexas
May 11, 2024 8:22 am

Plus you are averaging air with varying humidity. Humid air has a significantly higher heat content than dry air.

Reply to  jcdntexas
May 11, 2024 9:30 am

I couldn’t calculate a valid average temperature for my house and garden never mind the whole planet, despite having similar climate bands (e.g. -18 degrees Celsius in the freezer, 5 degrees in the refrigerator, 22 degrees in the direct sun, 18 degrees in the shade and 30+ degrees in the greenhouse).

David Wojick
Reply to  jcdntexas
May 11, 2024 9:48 am

Scientifically one does not estimate the average. The estimate is of an interval based on a specified probability that the true value lies within it. For high probabilities this interval can be very large. The average is merely the midpoint on that interval. This basic math fact is universally ignored.

Reply to  David Wojick
May 11, 2024 4:05 pm

Now I’m making a guesstimate based on some of my investigations and I suspect monthly averages have an uncertainty in the low single digits. Say 2 – 4°C. That means every anomaly calculated is within the uncertainty interval. So who knows what is happening without using a crystal ball.

Anybody that says averaging can provide additional decimal digits beyond what was actually measured and recorded never progressed past eighth grade math.

Reply to  David Wojick
May 12, 2024 6:58 pm

People confuse accuracy with precision. One measurement doesn’t have an error in accuracy–it has an error in precision. You must make many measurements of the “same thing” to get an estimated accuracy. Daily temperature measurements are not measuring the “same thing.”

Reply to  jcdntexas
May 11, 2024 1:17 pm

Climate “Scientists” are unable to grasp the fundamental difference between enthalpy, an extensive variable (dependent on the quantity of matter), and temperature, an intensive variable (independent of same). The former can be averaged, the latter not.

Reply to  Graemethecat
May 11, 2024 3:30 pm

I’m a chemist and am amazed that these people don’t understand thermodynamics. Its essential to understanding climate

Reply to  MIke McHenry
May 11, 2024 4:11 pm

Thermodynamics? How do you measure to the nearest ml, and then say, “well I did it 20 times and the average lets me calculate the differences to μl”.

Reply to  MIke McHenry
May 12, 2024 7:18 pm

Even people who teach thermodynamics don’t understand thermodynamics.

On another thread, I stated that the Second Law only applies to “isolated systems.” I was chastised by an individual who said he taught thermodynamics, laws always apply, and the Second Law always applies. He, of course, is wrong.

I watched a video by Neil deGrasse Tyson (not someone I usually turn to for factual info) on the Second Law. His first statement was: “The Second Law only applies to isolated systems.” That was correct, but then his show presented examples that weren’t of isolated systems.

The Universe is an isolated system–we think. Therefore the Universe must obey the Second Law. So we have two cases: isolated systems and non-isolated systems where we must include the affect to the entire Universe. What is usually done with a non-isolated system is that you include the effects of the system and its surroundings–essentially an isolated system.

And laws only apply where they are valid. He reminded me of my arguments with individuals who didn’t “believe” in evolution theory–laws are not proven theories.

Reply to  jcdntexas
May 11, 2024 2:21 pm

How is it even possible to derive an “average global temperature?”

It is possible if error bars are assigned responsibly. The problem is, the implied precision (sans error bars) suggests that we know the average with greater precision than we actually do. The Rule of Thumb is to not show any more significant figures in the nominal average than the largest significant figure in the uncertainty, and to round-off the uncertainty to that precision.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 11, 2024 4:15 pm

It’s even worse than that. Think about it. I measure to the nearest integer. I do some averaging and then subtract some of them and get a number to the one-thousandths digit. That means I subtracted numbers like 25.009 from 26.002. Where did those decimals come from?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 12, 2024 7:26 pm

“The Rule of Thumb is to not show any more significant figures . . . .”

If I did that on an engineering exam, the prof would take points away. Back then we only had slide rules. To get too many significant figures with a slide rule was quite a feat!

Reply to  Jim Masterson
May 12, 2024 9:14 pm

I doubt that. I was teaching about the time that hand calculators came out. I made it a point that the students not report all the displayed digits. I usually used multiple choice tests for my convenience. What I would do is offer 5 potential choices, all of which consisted of the leading digits being correct, but only one having the correct number of significant figures. Of course, I only did that once, not for every question.

If, when using a slide rule, all the data provided are limited to 3 significant figures, it is still sometimes possible to read 4 digits if the final answer in scientific notation (x.xx * 10^x) has a leading digit of <2. However, only the first 3 digits are significant no matter the precision of any factor because All are rounded to 3 digits when using a slide rule.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 12, 2024 10:49 pm

“I doubt that.”

Yeah, and I doubt your comment. If you’re going to call me a liar, then do so. It is possible to get “four” significant digits with a slide rule. Three is the usual result. We didn’t have calculators back then. Still, I remember losing points for “four” significant digits when “three” were the correct number.

Reply to  Jim Masterson
May 12, 2024 10:59 pm

In the late ’60s and early ’70s we had the Wang calculator. It gave answers with 9 significant digits. Most were bogus.

Dieter Schultz
Reply to  jcdntexas
May 11, 2024 10:13 pm

How is it even possible to derive an “average global temperature”?

Maybe a better approach to ‘asking’ that question might be to back into that question with something resembling analysis because, the AGW crowd will not try to mathematically answer that question.

Maybe this has already been done but, what I’d suggest is that someone forgets the forcing question and then models this very question by taking the same 1,970 sq. mi. grids (or even some different sized squares, larger or smaller will only affect compute complexity), create multiple layers, or cuts, on the surface (water, land, snow, etc.) and in the atmosphere based on something resembling how the atmosphere is structured, add into the model some effects associated with the effects of clouds and move them around via some simple atmospheric weather model with the clouds intercepting the suns irradiation, and then see how much variation in taking any single point estimate (like the mean as calculated now) can be against a full set of worldwide temperature estimates from all 100,000 grids on the surface of the earth across all of the layers, or cuts, starting with the the first 100 feet of the ‘crust’ up through 4, 5, 6, or whatever number of layers in the atmosphere.

Do this for every hour, day, and year for… a few decades generating billions of data points.

Identify some measurement points that’d represent our current weather stations (all on land) and calculate the ‘IPCC average’ temperatures from that but then use the worldwide temperature values to calculate descriptive statistics like average, standard deviation, etc.

Now we can compare how accurately a subset of the ‘known’ and ‘true’ temperatures compares to the full set of temperature measurements.

And then ask the question of the data, ‘With what precision and repeatability can the single temperature point estimate used by IPCC match what the calculated global average that uses the millions of simulated temperature values generated by the model?

My instincts around analyzing data like this would be that the single, point estimate, that the IPCC and AGW are fond of quoting would result in error bands that would be beyond laughable.

We should stop trying to play the game that the AGW are playing and pick one that actually, numerically, represents what we’re trying to say when we postulate that “How is it even possible to derive an “average global temperature?”

The question you ask is a good question but, we shouldn’t let the AGW crowd answer it for us.

MarkW
Reply to  jcdntexas
May 12, 2024 10:35 am

For the ground based system, it’s closer to 10,000 stations, and they are clustered in N. America, Europe and a few parts of Southeast Asia.

Satellite based systems come pretty close to full coverage, except they don’t measure the last few degrees before the poles.

Reply to  MarkW
May 12, 2024 9:16 pm

Which means that there is a warm bias because some of the coldest temps are ‘deleted’ routinely.

May 11, 2024 8:21 am

The average temperature ? Does this include the higher night temperatures coming from UHI effects, or are these satellite measurements ? What would the curve look like, if only daytime average temperatures were plotted ?

May 11, 2024 8:23 am

The earth has experienced similar temperatures

in the past without disastrous consequences. 

_______________________________________________________________

There isn’t anything that climate scientists and
the press claim about “Climate Change” that
hasn’t happened before or has been happening
right along or is simply not true.

May 11, 2024 8:43 am

Some of the ”world’s top climate scientists” believe… in God.

I guess it must be true, established by science.

J Boles
May 11, 2024 8:50 am
Scissor
Reply to  J Boles
May 11, 2024 9:02 am

Bidenomics distorts and damages auto market, to what end?

Reply to  Scissor
May 11, 2024 10:58 am

It’s the IPCC that is pushing the “climate change” agenda down to the countries. Most of the developed countries are just following their lead.

May 11, 2024 9:01 am

Substitute “carnival barkers” for “climate scientists” and “climate experts.” 😁

Dave Andrews
May 11, 2024 9:38 am

They followed up on 10th May with a full page article by Damian Carrington entitled ‘World is on edge of climate abyss, UN says after damning Guardian survey’

Quoting a spokesperson for the UN General Secretary thus

“The battle to keep 1.5C alive will be won or lost in the 2020s – under the watch of political and industry leaders today. They need to realise we are on the verge of the abyss. The science is clear and so are the world’s scientists: the stakes for all humanity could not be higher”

They have a long quote from Christiana Figueres and it is not the one when she was Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) and said

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to transform the economic development model for the first time in human history”

They also quote Harjeet Singh of something called ‘The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Initiative’, which is a new one on me. He blathers on about governments, especially in rich countries, prioritising FF interests over the wellbeing of their people.

Typical Grauniad piece.

David Wojick
May 11, 2024 9:40 am

We have nothing to fear but fear itself and their fear is scary.

May 11, 2024 9:43 am

This 5000 yr old tree stump outside ofTukuyatktuk village on Canada’s far NW Arctic coast grew in 6-8°C avg annual T. Considering Arctic Amplification of 2 times Global avg anomaly, indicates that it was at least 3°C warmer on a average Globally at the time!

tree-stump-climate
DStayer
May 11, 2024 9:50 am

I’m sorry but the Guardian lost me when they referred to the IPCC as authoritative! They couldn’t model themselves out of a wet paper bag!

Reply to  DStayer
May 11, 2024 11:07 am

The Sun accounts for 99 percent of the heat the Earth receives and clouds which cover two-thirds of the globe and can reflect 90 percent of the energy the Earth receives from the Sun aren’t even in their models.

Reply to  DStayer
May 12, 2024 7:29 pm

Or a dry bag for that matter.

Coeur de Lion
May 11, 2024 9:57 am

I imagine these unnamed experts want to see reduction in the level of atmospheric CO2. Somebody tell them that there is no way that the Keeling curve will be checked whether it’s natural or Asian power stations. No way! So how does that affect their employment?

May 11, 2024 10:26 am

Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)…

Read that section carefully. What it actually says is that the IPCC agrees with itself.

It’s no different than saying “we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong.

Reply to  doonman
May 11, 2024 2:27 pm

What is significant is that more than 20% of the IPCC members do not agree with the conclusions of the others.

May 11, 2024 10:45 am

As the author says “humans are quite adaptable”.

People live in cold temperatures like Anchorage Alaska at around 20F(-7C) in January to Dubai at around 97F(36C) in July.

Some people like it warm, some people like it cool.

May 11, 2024 10:53 am

Human emissions of CO2 dropped about 6 percent in 2020 at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic yet CO2 kept rising at the same rate.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x
https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2

MarkW
Reply to  scvblwxq
May 11, 2024 11:51 am

The rate of variation from one year to the next is way more than 6%. A change that small, for a few months, is too small to see.

Reply to  MarkW
May 11, 2024 2:28 pm

What about the huge increases as China and the developing world ramped up. No increase from that has shown up

Scissor
Reply to  MIke McHenry
May 11, 2024 6:23 pm

There actually is a slight acceleration visible in the Mauna Loa data. See for yourself. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/mlo.html

Of course the sinks act to smooth out changes in accumulation of our relatively small and pretty well known emissions. What we don’t have is a detailed understanding of all of the CO2 sinks and how they interact. We do know that the accumulation of CO2 is less than can be accounted for by our emissions by roughly 50%.

Clyde Spencer discusses all of this and has some ideas of what might be happening. As far as global carbon is concerned, the conservation laws dictate that the earth is already at net zero.

Reply to  Scissor
May 11, 2024 6:57 pm

Something else to consider: One of the strongest (or at least most frequently resorted to) arguments for the influence of Man is conservation of mass. Is it reasonable that when those constructing the balance sheets for the Carbon Cycle looked to see how they balanced that they would be immune to the temptation to adjust the fluxes if they weakened that argument?

Scissor
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 12, 2024 11:57 am

Reasonable no, possible yes.

MarkW
Reply to  MIke McHenry
May 12, 2024 10:38 am

Those are partly offset by decreases in the west.

Reply to  MarkW
May 11, 2024 2:39 pm

If you review my graph of the CO2 ramp-up phase (Fig. 3), you will see that they are typically similar in shape and maximum range from year to year (except El Nino years), with the values reported to a precision of 0.1 PPM out of a range of about 8 PPM, or about 1%. The problem is when one looks at the annual net change, information is obscured because of the draw-down phase. That is the mistake that Roy made.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 11, 2024 6:58 pm

Mark, don’t you read replies to your comments?

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 12, 2024 10:40 am

Am I on this site constantly, no.

Reply to  scvblwxq
May 11, 2024 2:30 pm

Actually, the annual average drop was variously estimated (without an uncertainty) at 6-10%, with April estimated at 14-18%.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 11, 2024 7:21 pm

2020 Month Year Anthro’ CO2
January 2020.00 -6.8% Ramp-up phase
February 2020.08 -5.6%
March 2020.16 -9.6%
April 2020.25 -14.5%
May 2020.33 -11.1%
Average -9.5%

June 2020.41 -6.6% Draw-down phase
July 2020.50 -5.8%
August 2020.58 -4.0%
September 2020.67 -3.9%
Average -3.8%

October 2020.75 -2.9% Ramp-up phase
November 2020.83 -2.2%
December 2020.92 2.1%
January 2021.00 -0.8%
Average -1.0%

MarkW
May 11, 2024 11:33 am

Opinion is not science.

I’ve yet to met an alarmist who has managed to understand that distinction.

Reply to  MarkW
May 11, 2024 2:39 pm

and computer models are simply mathematical opinions.

Scissor
Reply to  Nansar07
May 11, 2024 6:26 pm

They’re tools also and can be useful. We shouldn’t expect politicians who on aggregate are incapable of balancing a budget to understand.

Reply to  Scissor
May 12, 2024 7:40 pm

Realize that politicians hate you. Once you realize that, you are enlightened. People who can do–do. People who can’t do–teach. Those that can’t teach go into politics. Of course, failed politicians think they can teach.

MarkW
May 11, 2024 11:35 am

”world’s top climate scientists” believe that disaster is soon to occur due to what they claim will be an additional degree of warming on the planet

And when nothing happens, Warren will declare that this prediction never happened because it was not in a peer reviewed study.

Reply to  MarkW
May 11, 2024 1:05 pm

He is actually accusing said scientists of deliberately lying to get newspaper headlines.

Of making up “stuff” that is not supported by their own peer-reviewed papers.

He obviously has an extremely low opinion of so-called climate scientists.

Thing is…. in quite a few cases, he is probably correct.

May 11, 2024 1:10 pm

Very OT, but the CME thread is way back, and I thought people might like this “aurora” photo taken looking south from Hobart, Tasmania

436138963_1111222053500545_8023635052807095572_n
Mr.
Reply to  bnice2000
May 11, 2024 2:14 pm

I’ve got a phone full of such pics from last night, but from the other side and the top of the earth rather than the bottom.

Wonder what pics of a Carrington Event would look like.

Reply to  Mr.
May 11, 2024 2:45 pm

Story tip..?

A thread of Aurora pics from the last day or so, would be nice 🙂

Don’t know if anything was visible from where I am, because we were covered by rain and clouds.. still !

Forecast::: “Hunter for Sunday. Cloudy. High chance of showers, most likely in the morning and afternoon. The chance of a thunderstorm. Light winds.”

Reply to  bnice2000
May 12, 2024 7:45 pm

We had “auroras” a couple of days ago. You couldn’t see them with the naked eye, but a phone camera displayed the colors. That was amazing because during an eclipse (the one that went through Oregon), my phone camera was useless.

Reply to  bnice2000
May 12, 2024 8:11 pm

My picture.

comment image

May 11, 2024 3:10 pm

whose and reputations will be destroyed if the climate crisis narrative is untrue.

The narrative is provably nonsense. They are scam artists. The fact that they get paid to perpetuate the scam is the sad part. They are no different to the scammers around the world dreaming up new ways to extract money from people through internet scams.

May 12, 2024 9:47 am

Another doomsday scenario people are currently mesmerized by is the Clear and Present Danger of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

My back-of-the-envelope estimate is that “10 – 17 times more people” die of natural stupidity than of any kind of intelligence, natural or artificial. ‘Twas ever thus, and ’twill always be.

That places stupidity as a far greater risk to life and limb than heat, cold, and intelligence of any kind, all put together.

sciguy54
May 12, 2024 10:21 am

More than half of the warming on this graph occurred before 1950, the date when most “scientists” admit that CO2 levels began to rise significantly. This indicates it is more likely that atmospheric CO2 rises subsequent to warming than it is that a rise in atmospheric CO2 causes increased temperatures.

gezza1298
May 12, 2024 2:19 pm

the respondents, all from the authoritative global warming activist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

That’s what it should say.

Bob
May 12, 2024 4:20 pm

Nothing the CAGW crowd says means a damn thing to me, same for their mouthpiece.