Increasingly absurd disaster rhetoric is consistently contradicted by climate and weather data and backed up by little more than obstinate assertions, says Paul Driessen at Climate Change Dispatch.
– – –
Call it climate one-upmanship. It seems everyone has to outdo previous climate chaos rhetoric.
The "climate crisis" is the "existential threat of our time," Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her House colleagues. We must "end the inaction and denial of science that threatens the planet and the future."
Former California Governor Jerry Brown solemnly intoned that America has "an enemy, though different, but perhaps very much devastating in a similar way" as the Nazis in World War II.
Not to be outdone, two PhDs writing in Psychology Today declared that "the human race faces extinction" if we don't stop burning fossil fuels.
And yet "even people who experience extreme weather events often still refuse to report the experiences as a manifestation of climate change." Psychologists, they lament, "have never had to face denial on this scale before."
Then there's Oxford University doctoral candidate Samuel Miller-McDonald. He's convinced the only thing that could save people and planet from cataclysmic climate change is cataclysmic nuclear war that "shuts down the global economy but stops short of human extinction."
All this headline-grabbing gloom and doom, however, is backed up by little more than computer models, obstinate assertions that the science is settled, and a steady litany of claims that temperatures, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts et cetera are unprecedented, worse than ever before, and due to fossil fuels.
And on the basis of these hysterics, we are supposed to give up the carbon-based fuels that provide over 80% of the U.S.' and global energy, gladly reduce our living standards – and put our jobs and economy at the mercy of expensive, unreliable, weather dependent, pseudo-renewable wind, solar and biofuel energy.
As in any civil or criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the accusers and prosecutors who want to sentence fossil fuels to oblivion. They need to provide more than blood-curdling charges, opening statements and summations. They need to provide convincing real-world evidence to prove their case.
They have refused to do so. They ignore the way rising atmospheric carbon-dioxide is spurring plant growth and greening the planet. They blame every extreme weather event on fossil fuel emissions, but cannot explain the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age or extreme weather events decades or centuries ago – or why we have had fewer extreme weather events in recent decades.
They simply resort to trial in media and other forums where they can exclude exculpatory evidence, bar any case for the fossil fuel defense, and prevent any cross-examination of their witnesses, assertions and make-believe evidence.
Climate models are not evidence. At best, they offer scenarios of what might happen if the assumptions on which they are based turn out to be correct.
However, the average prediction by 102 models is now a full degree F (0.55 C) above what satellites are actually measuring.
Models that cannot be confirmed by actual observations are of little value and certainly should not be a basis for vital energy policymaking.
The alarmist mantra seems to be: If models and reality don't agree, reality must be wrong.
Continued here.
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2T4bK4P
No comments:
Post a Comment