Skip to content

Watch Roger Pielke On Extreme Weather

April 29, 2017

By Paul Homewood

In 2013, Dr David Whitehouse interviewed Prof Roger Pielke Jnr on the topic of extreme weather, for GWPF TV.

It’s about 20 minutes long, but still worth watching.

 

Everything that Pielke said then still applies. What is interesting though is that he thought that “data would win out”, and that climate scientists would have to accept that extreme weather events were not increasing because of global warming.

It seems to me that since 2013, more and more such fraudulent claims are being made.

 

 

Advertisements
9 Comments
  1. April 29, 2017 11:44 am

    Great video. Thank you.
    To which I may add …
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2929159

  2. Broadlands permalink
    April 29, 2017 12:11 pm

    from Wikipedia…

    Hurricane Sandy not the first to hit New York: A 1938 storm ‘The Long Island Express’ pounded the Eastern Seaboard. The storm formed near the coast of Africa in September of the 1938 hurricane season, becoming a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane scale before making landfall as a Category 3 hurricane on Long Island on September 21.
    Long Island was struck first, before New England, Vermont, New Hampshire and Quebec, earning the storm the nickname the ‘Long Island Express’. The winds reached up to 150 mph and had waves surging to around 25–35 feet high.[The destruction was immense and took a while to rebuild. The western side of the hurricane caused sustained tropical storm-force winds, high waves, and storm surge along much of the New Jersey coast. In Atlantic City the surge destroyed much of the boardwalk. Additionally, the surge inundated several coastal communities; Wildwood was under 3 feet (0.91 m) of water at the height of the storm. The maximum recorded wind gust was 70 m.p.h. at Sandy Hook.

  3. April 29, 2017 4:59 pm

    Many years ago the BBC did a Horizon programme on the destruction of the Moche civilisation around 560AD due to 30 years of mega El Ninos (deluges) followed by a 30 year drought. Weather info starts at 23 minutes in.

    http://bit.ly/2oW1Lj1

  4. April 29, 2017 5:10 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  5. tom0mason permalink
    April 29, 2017 9:39 pm

    In the West it all boils down to a race between the political movements mandating the installation of climate mitigation controls at great public expense, and the scientists coming to a conclusion on the effects CO2 has on climate.

    Personally I would go with an in depth examination of historical events. Entertainment that subtly includes past weather extremes into story-lines. Geography, history and literature lessons in education that highlights past extreme weather events. (Winter campaign failure of both Hitler and Napoleon when invading Russia, the ‘Grapes of Wrath’ heatwaves, extreme weather event during the American War of Independence and the US Civil War, the Dalton and Maunder minimums, 1703 Great storm in Europe, the history of the rise and fall of great empires correlating with climate change, etc.)
    Only then ask the public how much money want to (in all probability) waste on climate mitigation. Without people understanding how the climate varies over time, at timescales that are longer than a generation, can a proper debate on the matter be possible.

    Today too many people are campaigning for drastic changes to the way we live based on very short term views and ideas. Additionally there is the push for ‘Sustainable development’ as defined by the UN and is retrograde step for the Western developed nations and the world — it only seek to close the gap between ‘developing’ countries (China, India, etc) and the developed West, by impoverishing the West by punitive taxation, reducing the West to nearer the developing nation status — all the while neglecting to improve the lot of the world’s poorest. While the UN has no stomach to prevent wars, or the acts of inhumane dictatorships any where in the world, the innocent poor will continue to get poorer and suffering millions will be tortured, languish in jails and die horrible deaths.

  6. CheshireRed permalink
    April 29, 2017 11:35 pm

    I think we need an independent government-appointed regulator who can verify climate science claims BEFORE they get to drive policy. Everyone knows climate change has become a hugely politicised gravy train with data manipulation, propaganda and the rest of it. It has to stop. If claims don’t pass analysis then policy cannot be delivered on the back of such claims. Time to get tough.

    • April 30, 2017 10:49 am

      Agree in principle, CR, but how do you stop the “independent government-appointed regulator” from becoming politicised?

      One of the major problems we have encountered over the last quarter-century is the extent to which individuals, groups, organisations that we might have trusted to be objective have fallen victim to the cAGW meme either by infiltration or on the basis that “they’re scientists and scientists wouldn’t lie about something this important.”

      Or worst of all, by assuming that environmentalists are truthful and innocent lovers of all things environmental and getting rid of “pollution” and “dirty” things like coal and nuclear power just MUST be the right thing to do because, well, “it stands to reason, dunnit?”

      And of course there is lots of lovely money to be siphoned more or less painlessly out of the pockets of the sheeple who don’t know much about science (which in truth is probably most of us) but know they can trust scientists (see above) and the BBC!

      So who is there left to sit on your “independent government-appointed regulator” especially if the job of choosing them is delegated to climate “experts” because they are, after all, the experts!

      ‘Catch-22’ comes to mind.

  7. April 30, 2017 9:57 am

    One of the tricks being used these days is to try and link jet stream changes to man-made climate change. But once again this is after-the-fact theorising with no credible physical mechanism offered.

    Here (link) we get the usual ‘it must be our fault’ waffle suggesting ‘Rapid warming of the Arctic may be impacting the jet stream’. What rapid warming? Another fantasy.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/27/meteorologists-are-seeing-global-warmings-effect-on-the-weather

    This is more to the point IMO…

    Sleepy sun thickens the slow solar wind
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24851-sleepy-sun-thickens-the-slow-solar-wind/

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: