Seven things to know about climate change–National Geographic
By Paul Homewood
h/t Cheshire Red
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/
National Geographic has long lost any scientific credibility on climate change issues. It’s new project, “Seven things to know about climate change”, does nothing to restore it.
In fact, as their graph clearly shows, temperatures have been steadily rising the 19thC, long before CO2 emissions could have made any noticeable difference.
Why is there no mention that the Little Ice Age, culminating in the late 19thC, is known to be probably the coldest period in Earth’s history since the end of the last Ice Age?
They also mention satellite measurements, but strangely forget to state that atmospheric temperatures last year were no higher than in 1998.
The other “six things to know” are dealt with here:
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Apparently they forgot to see that the year-over-year rate of temperature rise is almost imperceptible. But, they are not alone.
My parents gave my brothers and myself lifetime subscriptions to “The National Geographic.” My grandparents had it since 1915 and I now have that collection. Beginning in the late 1970’s they were taken over by the militant environmentalists and the rapid downward spiral began. During the time I worked in the US National Herbarium of the Smithsonian Institution, I checked botanical statements of fact for their articles. I am even credited in their publication of “The Appalachian Trail.” I doubt they bother these days to check anything they say.
Several years ago, I wrote them a long letter and asked to have my lifetime membership terminated as “The National Geographic” was no longer welcome in my home. I got the “sorry if you cannot see your way to agree with us” letter and the subscription was suspended.
I vividly remember the issue devoted to The Sun. Although they pointed out that the sun was hotter than it had been for some time, they closed with the disclaimer that it had nothing to do with the climate warming.
Is there a Scientific Reference about the Sun being hotter than it has been?
Growing up in England, during Labour Government-imposed austerity, after WWII, I read it as “consumer porn.” The ads for gadgets and stuff that ordinary Americans could buy for a few dollars made me salivate. My father explained that importation of any of these items would – after shipping and customs – kill them as bargains. Was not it enough that he had just bought a car with a radio in it?
A radio, A RADIO – that was luxury!
Me and us family lived in a shoebox, dad put wheels with a chain on it and ey up we pedalled ‘n’ me mam navigated, seventeen kids and three stone of monkey nuts, by eck! we knew ‘ow to live in them days………………….
Compare the NG graphic with this:
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/el-nino-ties-record-january-2016
Something doesn’t stack up.
Nothing stacks up with this bunch.
This is a classic use of a few real data points and then inferring some conclusion that has no Scientific basis. Yes, it is hotter now than in 1970. Yes, atmospheric CO2 is higher than and increasing because of burning fossil fuels. Yes CO2 can cause some warming – not even mentioned in the NG article. The last four items are a result of it getting warmer and the fact that we could reduce CO2 emissions if we switched our energy source (although we are far, far, far from being able to do that with renewables to a really significant amount.)
The real question is “Where is the Science that says that more than 50% of the warming has been caused by atmospheric CO2 increase?”
Of course Paul Cook claims that 97% of Environmental Scientists believe that. Please read his paper, then go to his Skeptical Science website and find the details of his report. He looked at over 12,000 papers. Of that only 65 said they believed more than 50% of global warming cause by CO2. Another 934 said CO2 caused some global warming, but did not state that how much. Another 2934 said something that implied that CO2 might have some effect. There were 78 who stated CO2 is less than 50% of the warming effect. There were 8269 that stated no position.
Cook eliminated the 8269. He then lumped everybody who said that CO2 could be a cause of something and found that they were 97% of this all Scientists that believed CO2 was causing GLOBAL WARMING.
If you want to really analyze his paper, it says that 65/12280 = .52% of the papers reviewed, that did discuss either “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”, said they believed that Global Warming was mostly caused by atmospheric CO2 increases. How can anyone with any kind of technical background listen to the “97% of all Scientists….” and not jump up and down screaming “Liar, Liar, pants on fire.”?
Evidently, 23 of those 64 papers were mis-allocated according to Monckton.
One of their ‘things’ has a chart coming from an insurance company (the one with the number of catastrophes or something like that). The problem is that it’s not clear at all what that chart means. Apparently it means there are more goods and more expensive ones to be insured now than in the past, and more people to insure those goods now than in the past, not that the number and intensity of the actual weather-related events increased… it would be nice if somebody would track down the data source, I could find only that it comes from an insurance company.
They say the earth gets warmer “from year to year.” (Perhaps 0.8 C over 140 years.)
They do not tell you the Northern Hemisphere gets warmer and then colder “from season to season” IN each year by an enormously greater amount:
That is an increase of the brightness temperature of the air, at the level of our noses, each year, of 13 C. Somehow we survive!
The big problem is that the Big Lie is working by keeping repeating the mantra that the world is:
about to cook,
have no polar bears,
flood due to sea-level rise,
have no ice, and, of course,
97% of scientists agree.
A lot of well educated people are totally taken in as they do not question Big Brother. Also, it appeals to the human guilt set.
I assume that the temperature rise shown on the graph at 2.48 degrees is in Fahrenheit and is 1.38 in Celsius. That seems a good bit higher than any claims from official sources.
Seven things that National Geographic is confused about Climate Change
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2017/04/seven-things-that-national-geographic.html
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
IRRESISTIBLE 5-part dissection by Paul Homewood of the climate according to National Geographic…
Twitter Response to NatGeo
“Wrong.Even with zero carbon emissions climate change occurs.
That is a fact.
60 years of data doesn’t explain billions of years of this.”
https://twitter.com/n8dawwggg/status/852532028226519040
Previous FakeNews from NatGeo
https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status/841481879966617601
“Of course Nat Geo is dumbed down.
Look who owns it Rup. Murdoch.
When he took over, we axed our subscription”
“Those who watch National Geographic are watching AGW porn..evil lies & propaganda dressed up as pretty pics..sad”
“What the hell happened to National Geographic! It’s pure liberal propaganda!”
Alleged that a ne female editor is the cause
“21C Fox owns 73%”
Maybe he realised making LibMob propaganda causes the rebellion that generates support for Trump.
“National Geographic you used to be a high quality magazine.
Now you’re just another Leftist propaganda rag.”
Fancy saying that NatGeo has gone to SJWTaliban
Their recent gender fluid special
https://twitter.com/JeroenBowman/status/810531316445876224
The National Geographic – taking “Be all you can be” to a whole new level.