Image credit: thebulletin.org
H/T The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
Broadly speaking, two separate arguments bear the climate label. One is whether there is something wrong (whatever that may mean) with the climate, and the other is whether humans are causing changes to the climate. Of course the two are usually run together as one issue, or supposed issue. Here Canadian Professor Ross McKitrick looks at the first aspect, advising readers to ‘Clip out this column, keep it close at hand, and quote from the experts when the occasion arises.’ But most people find themselves exhorted to panic first and ignore all the underlying realities, despite the lack of anything worth panicking about.
– – –
On June 7, I published an op-ed on this page telling the story of Roger Pielke Jr., a U.S. climate expert whose research on climate change and extreme weather didn’t support many of the alarmist slogans on the subject.
Despite his findings being squarely in the mainstream of his academic specialty, for stating them publicly Pielke Jr. was vilified, bullied and eventually harassed into quitting the field.
Conservative MP Lisa Raitt tweeted a link to my article. As if to prove the point of the story, the climate mob quickly vilified, bullied and harassed her into deleting her tweet.
I wrote Lisa an open letter, hoping she would notice the pattern.
Legions of self-appointed “fact checkers” readily ignore even the most deranged exaggerations by politicians if they serve the cause of alarmism but will pile on aggressively and relentlessly against any efforts to bring evidence into the discussion.
But let us not be deterred. The evidence is in the relevant sections of the past Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report, which I will now quote at length. Read these paragraphs and ask yourself if the word “emergency” applies. Ask yourself if it sounds anything like what you have been repeatedly told by our environment minister and the prime minister, who speak so often about these things.
Flooding: “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.” (p. 214)
To which they added, in their 2012 report on the subject, “In the United States and Canada during the 20th century and in the early 21st century, there is no compelling evidence for climate-driven changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods.” (p. 176)
Droughts: “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, owing to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice.” (p. 215)
The report goes on to point out that there is a decreasing trend in droughts in central North America.
Continued here.
– – –
Footnote
See also: Climate science’s ‘masking bias’ problem
Posted on June 21, 2019 by Judith Curry
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
June 22, 2019 at 03:34AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 