Lots of ignorant bigots believe climate change is a hoax. We’ve compiled this list of twelve compelling reasons climate change is quite obviously real – and it’s going to kill us all.
Get your copy of The Babylon Bee Guide To The Apocalypse: https://buff.ly/4cplpuH
H/T ferdberple
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well done 🙂 I wonder how many people will “get it”.
How many people don’t get it is more important.
12% of people can’t get it.
21% of people refuse to get it.
35% of people don’t care to get it or not to get it.
31% get it.
I got it,
but the doctor said antibiotics should clear it up (:-))
Humor – a difficult concept.
— Lt. Saavik
Irrefutable proof that the climate changes.
1) Canada is no longer covered by a mile thick sheet of Ice.
2) Semi permanent Ice Sheets cover Antarctica.
3) Both Tree Stumps and Ancient Villages have been uncovered by retreating glaciers.
4) Sea level has been 100′ higher in the past.
5) Sea level has been 400′ lower in the past.
6) People used to celebrate Frost Faires on the Thames.
7) We aren’t in a Hot House Earth.
8) We aren’t in a Snowball Earth.
And not one single forecast of climate doom has ever come to pass….. Climate varies. Get used to it.
Oh and why do you think that the swamping of the Maldives has never happened – Oh! and worse why is it that the Paris money received by the Maldives to cope with the islands elimination has actually gone to the building of five new airports at near beach level… Odd that.
Then we have Prof Ridd fired for showing that the Corals off Australia do not die off (permanently) after all. That silly prognosis by a colleague of Ridd’s wasn’t even based on real science…Yet it happened…
Let’s be nice to France at the moment.
France??? Bleah!!! Let them Eat Cake
“Let’s be nice to France at the moment.”
WHY ??
They have to put up with Micron
Self flagellation.. their problem !
The Guiltotine
I would, but they’re…French!
Nice is in France.
The Babylon Bee is diabolically funny. A regular go to.
(Hope this displays correctly.)
Aren’t the climate alarmist and zombies the same?
Zombies respond to stimuli.
Humor – a difficult concept.
— Lt. Saavik
Zombies supposedly want brains.
I suppose that makes Climate Alarmists safe from Zombies.
The image displayed correctly, but I notice at the bottom it used Wikipedia as a reference, therefore exposing it as a hoax.
😎
I sent it to one of my sisters who is an ER nurse.
She printed it and put it on their bulletin board.
All the staff got a kick out of it.
(I don’t thing any of them prepared such emergency packs though.)
Moral of the story: if everything is CC then NOTHING is CC.
This one is real:
A major flaw is the part about ice at the poles reflecting sunlight.
Given the globe is a “ball” and the massive ice sheets are at the poles, one has to look at the effective cross section area as view from the sun. The percentage becomes much smaller than the ration of surface areas.
By the time you get to the poles, the sun is coming in at such a low angle, the difference between the amount of sunlight reflected from ice vs snow, is barely measurable.
When the ice gets to be several years old and has accumulated soot and dust, it’s possible ice actually absorbs more sunlight than does water.
Even stipulating to his light absorption BS, the real issue is that the poles are the great radiator to space. Ice insulates. Open water radiates.
By real, I assume you mean not meant as humor.
Yes, a comical appearance and arrogant.
It is humorous but does make the point.
However, there is just one irrefutable proof that climate change is real.
Climate is defined as the 30-year average of weather.
Weather changes second by second.
Therefore the 30-year average changes second by second.
Therefore climate change is real.
QED
Seems a pretty arbitrary range. Is there a sound basis to using 30 years?
Wow, I now realize I’ve been around for 2.5 of those epochs! I see some trivial changes, mostly for the better.
Never thought of it that way, but me too.
No, 30 years was selected by the weather folks in 1934 for reporting purposes so that an adult over 30 could reasonably be expected to compare personal experience with what got reported in the newspapers. There were no computers so calculations were done by hand. Out of this came “Climate Normals” {note the CAPS}, being a definition somewhat as “Love” is in tennis.* “Normal” being perhaps a poor choice because it already had other meanings.
“At its 1934 Wiesbaden meeting the Commission designated the thirty-year period from 1901 to 1930 as the reference time frame for climatological standard normals. the baseline for measuring climate fluctuations.”
[ International Meteorological Organization – Wikipedia ]
* https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/land-based-station/us-climate-normals
A sample of thirty is generally recognized as a pretty good representation of the whole population. You can Google “sample size of 30 in statistics“
The problem is that the sample size must be of the same population. Weather and temperature change in a matter of minutes let alone the differences in the hemispheres. Sample size means nothing in this scenario. As to sampling at a station, you would need 30 thermometeers at a station all read at the same time to have a sample size of 30. As it is most stations have a sample size of 1. USCRN stations do have 3 thermometers, if they are all working, so the sample size is 3. Look 3 up in a “t table” and you get a factor of 3. That means the uncertainty must be multiplied by a “k” factor of three to get a 95% coverage interval.
So it’s not really written in stone, it’s just good a number as any.
“the thirty-year period from 1901 to 1930” is not usually “the reference time frame” on charts I see. 30 years has persisted as the reference span but the base year seems to be selected to make a point.
I am sure the mathematical luminaries {Gauss, Laplace, Pearson} were aware of the sample size of 30. Maxwell demonstrated that the normal distribution is not just a convenient mathematical tool, but may also occur in natural phenomena. However, many natural phenomena are not “normally distributed.” I suppose one could argue the 1934 gang new all this and chose “30” for convenience rather than scientific acumen.
I think they should have chosen “42”. 😉
Don’t panic!!!
I get it.
I once read that, whatever group decided on 30 years, and got it widely accepted, chose 30 years because they said that humans had, at that time, about 30 years of reasonably reliable data. Thus in the next 30 years they should be able to tell if anything was really different. Of course there seem to be better reasons for measuring against other known cycles such as 60 to 70 years, 100 years, 1000 years, various longer solar cycles, etc., but those are only indicated, not solidly supported, by data.
Yes. Back when 30 years was selected for average temperature, they only had 30 years of data. And it was primarily local, not global.
But it’s only been recently that they’ve started to call it “normal” rather than average and started to define “climate” as only 30 years.
Not really but it is the bare minimum. 60 years is the hallmark depending on what you are looking at. Obviously not ice ages etc. So, we have 1.5 degrees of warming since the lowest point 150 or so years ago. A positive for the planet one would think..
30 years is what the climatologists use today.
That used to be defined as a micro climate, the 30 year average of weather in a region or locale.
Climate change, prior to the ongoing insanity, was in terms of hundreds of thousands of years and even greater time intervals.
“Weather changes second by second.
Therefore the 30-year average changes second by second.”
Are you sure this logic works?
Yes, but it is not logic. It is purely the definition.
But climate is not defined over a thirty year period. In reality it is subject to change over millennia.
Of course.
I was regurgitating the current IPCC definition.
Of course climate change is real. 4.5 billion years ago it was very hot. Now not so much. Ergo the climate changed.
Well, I’m convinced. I knew it had to be something obvious.
(/sarc)
Greta is not amused.
Did someone say Beaker?
Wow, talk about a Muppet.. 😉
…. doesn’t the Saturday Heartland/WUWT intro show Bill Nye looking similar to that ??
Most people can see with their own eyes that the climate is always changing and always has done. We adapt to it. The main point is that IT IS NOT MAN-MADE and therefore CANNOT BE CHANGED BY MAN.
Weather and seasons change day by day. That is not evidence of a changing climate.
It’s another piece of the puzzle of settled science-
Fewer low-altitude clouds may explain ‘missing’ 0.2C of warming from Earth’s hottest year: study
We’re all doomed!
The article seems to rely on the conclusion that clouds prevent warming. If true then clouds would count as negative feedback in models. I wonder whether “Climate Science” agrees.
Now, I don’t need a gift idea for my daughter in law!!!!!!
Nope, not #7
…. always #8 !
⸫ no CC here. 😉
Sorry but this attempt at humor is bottom drawer and a waste of time. Come on! I can think of at least 5 more humourous things for people w half a brain
Obviously the climate alarmists therefore are not amused by anything.
;-))