Skip to content

The Climate Truth File From CFACT

October 26, 2016

By Paul Homewood 




I recommend you bookmark this.





The full analysis is here.

It gives a point by point rebuttal of every climate alarmist argument. 

  1. Curious George permalink
    October 26, 2016 5:48 pm

    I am a skeptic, but this work tends to oversimplify. As an example, “California’s current drought is not related to climate change.” In my opinion we just don’t know.

    • Broadlands permalink
      October 26, 2016 6:23 pm

      George… the history of drought in California would lead one to agree with you and consider that current droughts are not the result of “mankind’s attempt to change the climate one way and then reverse it.

      California…1898 was the third driest year on record (1895-2015)…

      “The drought of 1898 was, if possible, more devastating in its effects than previous droughts except that of 1862-1864. The southern half of the state was most severely affected, grasses drying as early as March so that cattlemen were in search of northern ranges early in the year. Lacking grazing facilities or the ability to transfer their herds long distances to better pastures, cattle producers found their stock dying in droves before the end of the summer. Even in the usually humid Pajaro Valley in Monterey County cattlemen resorted to the felling of trees in order to obtain the moss and browse from their branches, Tulare Lake, which had been the succor of thousands of cattle during the drought of 1862-1865, went dry during the summer of 1898.”


    • October 26, 2016 8:11 pm

      California has been in a relatively undrought like state in the last century.

      The real point is that there is no evidence at all that either their drought has anything at all with AGW, or that it is not natural

  2. tom0mason permalink
    October 26, 2016 6:12 pm

    Good report, bloody awful typeface — pseudo-typewriter style that’s tough on the eyes, especially when magnified (as I have to often do).

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      October 26, 2016 8:10 pm

      As a one-time editor (and typesetter and printer and general dogsbody!) I have to agree with you.

      The range of fonts on or available for the average laptop today is incredible and why anyone uses Courier from choice baffles me. I regret to say it but an article like that is intended to be read (one presumes) and the author is almost duty bound to ensure that he makes it as legible as possible with an easily readable font.

      I mean ….. why would you not??

  3. manicbeancounter permalink
    October 26, 2016 8:43 pm

    I am not sure about the quality of the piece. The bit on the Doran and Zimmerman 2009 paper is especially bad. They get the total number of questionnaires sent out correct (10,257) and that the 97% consensus was just 75 out of 77 responses. But there were 3146 actual responses, that were whittled down on the basis of claims to be “climate scientists” and on the papers published. It is this massaging of the figures along with banal questions that makes the paper stand out as an exemplar of the anti-science trend. As I tried to show last year, rather than trying to obtain stronger evidence for tighter versions of the warming hypothesis, climatology is degenerating into ever weaker evidence for an undefined issue. I created a little diagram to illustrate.

    Even worse, the structure of what can be said is determined by the activists who are clinging onto their beliefs.

    • October 27, 2016 3:08 am

      +Manic, well put in a scant 152 words. The planet’s warming. The amount and rate have been exaggerated. Man has caused some of it. The percentage has been exaggerated. If warming continues, there will be winners and losers. The losses are exaggerated. As a coupled chaotic non-linear system, climate can intrinsically not be modeled. The predictive power of the models has been exaggerated out of touch with all reality. Your diagram illustrates it perfectly.

  4. miket permalink
    October 28, 2016 8:06 pm

    Why do you think adobe reader is “blocked for this website” when I try to get to the full analysis?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: