Do Alarmists Know The Difference Between Weather And Climate?
Until recently, those expressing skepticism about climate-change catastrophe have been hauled over the coals (or the renewables equivalent) for not understanding the difference between ‘climate’ and ‘weather.’
The lack of global warming at the beginning of the 21st century was not to be taken, chided the warmists, as evidence that climate change was not happening.
Weather was the passing phenomenon of each day: climate was the real, deep thing.
Now, however, the alarmists themselves have elided the two concepts, using the Australian bushfires as their cue.
As Sir David Attenborough puts it: ‘The moment of crisis has come.’ They could be right, of course, but how could they really know?
In this sense, President Trump is surely justified in warning, at Davos, against the ‘Prophets of Doom’.
Prophecy is a different skill from an exact understanding of the here and now.
Mr. Trump might usefully have talked about the Profits of Doom too.
If the movement can persuade western society that the climate emergency is upon us, there are enormous sums to be made by people who claim to be able to remedy it.
Hence, the patter now coming out of companies such as Blackrock, BP or Microsoft, fanned by Mammon’s public intellectuals, such as Mark Carney.
A lot of clever people are putting the Green into greenbacks. A lot of less clever investors are going to get their fingers burnt.
Read more at Spectator US
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Peter F Gill
| #
The usually accepted period to measure climate change is 30 years. However as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has two phases of 30 years each and is rather important. It could be argued therefore that 60 year periods would be better for climate comparisons on Earth.
Reply
Douglas Brodie
| #
The answer to the question is no. Despite all the hysteria and propaganda, global temperatures fell from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s, an inconvenient fact which the climate establishment avoids mentioning and has partly erased from the climate record by retrospective adjustments, then rose until around the turn of the century since when they have basically flatlined (the well-documented “pause”) with only a tiny net rise since 2015 due to natural El Nino warming events. The net result has been little more than 20 years of steady global warming in the last 75 years despite steadily rising atmospheric CO2.
The level of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere was insignificant until about 1950 which means that all of the global warming from the start of the industrial revolutions up to about 1950 must have been due to natural causes. So why shouldn’t the post-1950 global warming have been entirely natural as well? There is no proof that man-made CO2 causes dangerous global warming, only the unproven assertions of the untrustworthy UN IPCC.
The climate alarmists who want to control and transform every aspect of our lives cherry-pick their propagandist facts and ignore the historic global temperature record which tells a very different story to their doom-mongering narrative. The so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is a natural process which has never been mentioned in any UN IPCC reports for policymakers, a shocking concealment given that its 60-year sinusoidal cycle aligns exactly with all the global temperature warmings and coolings of the past 170 years. It has been in its warm phase for the past 20 years and will soon enter its cold phase which can be expected to last for about 30 years like the global cooling from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s which led to scientific alarm calls that the planet was about to enter a new Ice Age.
Reply
Barry
| #
I’m sure the IPCC must be laughing all the way to the bank. Who ever thought it would be so easy to convince the general public who have no idea of how weather systems work that a three year drought or a high tide and storm surge can only be the results of climate change
Reply
John Harrison
| #
From time immemorial the general populace has proved to be suckers for doom-laden prophesies. It actually seems that they enjoy the thrill of a prediction of catastrophe, it certainly sells news and makes fat profits for those investing in renewable energy. Why do they react so aggressively towards anybody who dares to even suggest that things may not turn out as bad as predicted no matter how learned that person may be. They do not want to hear. Such aggression to my mind signals that their belief in Climate Emergency is verging on a religion and we deniers are the heretics. John Greene Chandler understood this unfortunate human trait exactly when he wrote about the antics of Chicken Little.
Reply