Skip to content

BBC’s Hurricane Misinformation

January 4, 2022

By Paul Homewood

 

How the BBC lie, cheat and misinform:

 

 

image

Weather events, linked to a changing climate, brought misery to millions around the world in 2021 according to a new report.

The study, from the charity Christian Aid, identified 10 extreme events that each caused more than $1.5bn of damage.

The biggest financial impacts were from Hurricane Ida which hit the US in August and flooding in Europe in July.

In many poorer regions, floods and storms caused mass displacements of people and severe suffering.

Not every extreme weather event is caused by or linked to climate change, although scientists have become bolder in exploring the connections.

One leading researcher, Dr Friederike Otto, tweeted earlier this year that every heatwave happening in the world now is "made more likely and more intense" by human induced climate change.

In relation to storms and hurricanes, there is growing evidence that climate change is also affecting these events.

In August, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the first part of its sixth assessment report.

In relation to hurricanes and tropical cyclones, the authors said they had "high confidence" that the evidence of human influence has strengthened.

"The proportion of intense tropical cyclones, average peak tropical cyclone wind speeds, and peak wind speeds of the most intense tropical cyclones will increase on the global scale with increasing global warming," the study said.

Just a few weeks after that report came out, Hurricane Ida hit the US.

According to Christian Aid it was the most financially destructive weather event of the year.

The slow-moving hurricane saw thousands of residents in Louisiana evacuated out of its path.

That storm brought massive rainfall across a number of states and cities, with New York issuing a flash-flood emergency alert for the first time.

Around 95 people died, with the economic losses estimated at $65bn.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59761839

 

We’ll ignore the rubbish spewed out by the far left Christian Aid, which we are used to seeing each year. Suffice to say that they use the familiar trick of picking a bad weather event and blaming it on climate change, with of course the mandatory emotive images.

Their claims about the economic damage are meaningless. As Roger Pielke has documented, normalised economic losses from US hurricanes show no trend since 1900. (Normalised losses take into account economic development – the fact that society now has more “things” to damage):

 

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1333434593836318720

Let’s concentrate instead on the BBC commentary which I have highlighted:

 

In relation to storms and hurricanes, there is growing evidence that climate change is also affecting these events.

In August, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the first part of its sixth assessment report.

In relation to hurricanes and tropical cyclones, the authors said they had "high confidence" that the evidence of human influence has strengthened.

"The proportion of intense tropical cyclones, average peak tropical cyclone wind speeds, and peak wind speeds of the most intense tropical cyclones will increase on the global scale with increasing global warming," the study said.

Anybody reading that would assume that hurricanes are getting worse, and that global warming is to blame. This, of course, is the BBC’s deliberate intention.

Start with this claim:

 In relation to hurricanes and tropical cyclones, the authors said they had "high confidence" that the evidence of human influence has strengthened

What this refers to however is just a catch all, referring to all types of extreme weather:

 image

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/

 

But what AR6 says about tropical cyclones is far from “high confidence”. They point up the increase in major hurricanes in the last four decades, but this is due to the AMO cycle. Longer term trends simply don’t exist, as the IPCC themselves admit.

image

NOAA’s own summary of AR6 comes to the same conclusion:

image

image

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

Now consider:

"The proportion of intense tropical cyclones, average peak tropical cyclone wind speeds, and peak wind speeds of the most intense tropical cyclones will increase on the global scale with increasing global warming," the study said.

Note the word “will”! It is certainly true that that the IPCC has forecast all sorts of apocalypse. The problem is that they have found no evidence that this is actually happening.

More honest reporting from the BBC would have stated that there is no evidence that hurricanes are getting worse, although they might in future.

64 Comments
  1. January 4, 2022 12:26 pm

    There is no question, the climate has always been changeable.
    The important unknowns are whether man ‘s activities can cause changes and, if so,whether any means exist to reverse or retard “AGW”

    • Broadlands permalink
      January 4, 2022 1:56 pm

      “One leading researcher, Dr Friederike Otto, tweeted earlier this year that every heatwave happening in the world now is “made more likely and more intense” by human induced climate change.”

      That must mean our addition of CO2 to the atmosphere that has made our lives better. So, professor, what is your solution to this drama? It’s time to stop warning us and get on to the solution.

      • Mack permalink
        January 4, 2022 4:07 pm

        Dr Otto is employed by the Grantham Institute. Say no more. In the meantime, back in the real world, on the eve of the 313th anniversary of the Great Frost that devastated Western Europe, crippling snow and cold has gripped North America, Northern Europe and the Far East and Arctic sea ice extent is about to breach the 14 Wadhams mark. It’s looking a tad chilly out there.

      • Phoenix44 permalink
        January 5, 2022 9:04 am

        What is more “intense”? Hotter? Longer lasting?

        This stuff is a joke. We have no way of knowing how hot or how long a heatwave would have been in a world without human CO2. The idea the models are accurate to fractions of a degree and a day or two for local areas of heatwaves is simply a joke.

  2. GeoffB permalink
    January 4, 2022 12:36 pm

    Just why are Christian Aid banging on about climate change? A quick prayer to the boss should fix it anyway!

    • europeanonion permalink
      January 4, 2022 2:58 pm

      Such opinions damage faith. If we live in God’s creation and are assured that God loves us why does prophesy from our faulted religious gain traction? The whole issue is a loss of faith. If we do our best with that which the Deity provided then that has to be us doing His work. AGLF advanced global loss of faith, saw the closure of 400 churches here last year. Into the vacuum, left by such a loss, people are creating their own faiths without a benevolent Deity. When the Archbishop of Canterbury makes dire predictions are they based on a visitation or private knowledge? Have any of these people got any sort of compassion knowing how many millions are without electricity? Medicine, we have learned, is a double edged sword for us, demanding draconian state control in exchange for largesse, represents a diabolical lack for others. Once the missionaries exported man’s achievements, bow before our faith and be like us. Now they seem to be saying learn to live with your unending struggle better because we will recommend neither electricity or industry, nasty polluting stuff.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      January 5, 2022 9:06 am

      Christian Aid are essentially a Marxist group who want to destroy capitalism. That their policies in the developing world have left hundreds of millions in needless poverty and killed millions of children over the decades doesn’t seem to bother them at all. They are utterly evil. Their cause matters far more than the lives of the people they claim to help.

      • January 5, 2022 12:36 pm

        Dear Phoenix44 rising from the ashes of the needless poverty and “the millions of children killed over the decades”. Might you consider if we, in the wealthy West, are as innocent and as angelic as you believe? Is it ONLY the Marxists who are responsible?

    • Richard Jarman permalink
      January 5, 2022 10:37 am

      One way of justifying the amount on money which CA will spend on lobbying fundraising public relations etc which require the huge number of people who go around the world with furrowed brows, wringing hands and aching virtue signalling – its what NGOs do best

  3. Gerry, England permalink
    January 4, 2022 1:26 pm

    And remember that the IPCC is a global warming advocacy group and NOT a reliable independent scientific body. Nor does anybody of any repute participate in the production of their reports as they left after AR2 or AR3 when they went to court to have their names removed from the report as it did not represent their input, and in any case, nowadays they would not be accepted as a ‘lead author’.

    • 4 Eyes permalink
      January 4, 2022 11:32 pm

      Gerry, I have read before about scientists disassociating themselves from IPCC. Do you have names and qualifications or can you point out where to find them? Their number must be substantial now. I can understand that some may not want their names published. These people are very important in the historical context mainly because MSM and activists always resort to appealing to authority. They think the IPCC is a tight group forever in full agreement about CAGW but may be surprised just how many have quit the IPCC. Thx.

  4. Coeur de Lion permalink
    January 4, 2022 2:27 pm

    Paul, do you take The Times? Annoying mendacious letter by a Prof Grubb about electricity prices needs rebuttal.

    • January 4, 2022 3:31 pm

      No, and its paywalled

      Can you copy me in?

      • Coeur de Lion permalink
        January 4, 2022 10:13 pm

        I can photo it and send it as an email to what address?

  5. January 4, 2022 2:54 pm

    “In relation to hurricanes and tropical cyclones, the authors said they had “high confidence” that the evidence of human influence has strengthened.”
    They have not studied Ross McKitrick’s new paper showing that all the attributation studies are based on invalid statistics.

    • January 4, 2022 4:07 pm

      Any human attribution estimates have to be assumed and then fabricated. There isn’t any other way, as they have no means of separating out the natural variation.

      • Phoenix44 permalink
        January 5, 2022 9:11 am

        Exactly. They don’t know the probability without man-made CO2 so can’t know if that probability has changed. And the event happened so unless it’s literally random (which it isn’t) it had definite causes which made it 100% probable.

        Attribution studies are scientism – the appearance of science/maths, not actual science/maths.

  6. Cheshire Red permalink
    January 4, 2022 3:08 pm

    Each time the BBC dig another slice of their own grave. The public notice, the BBC lie some more and round and round we go.

  7. It doesn't add up... permalink
    January 4, 2022 3:18 pm

    While there is much foaming at the mouth over certain awards of New Year honours have we been overlooking some?

    https://www.current-news.co.uk/news/rwe-renewables-sse-figures-recognised-in-2022-new-year-honours-list

  8. Gamecock permalink
    January 4, 2022 3:21 pm

    ‘In many poorer regions, floods and storms caused mass displacements of people and severe suffering.’

    I guess an appeal to pity fallacy is allowable for Christian Aid.

    ‘Not every extreme weather event is caused by or linked to climate change, although scientists have become bolder in exploring the connections.’

    What does that even mean?

    ‘One leading* researcher, Dr Friederike Otto, tweeted earlier this year that every heatwave happening in the world now is “made more likely and more intense” by human induced climate change.’

    Climate change is a generality, with no specific meaning. Human invented is more accurate. Anyhow, something that exists cannot be “made more likely.” It is a bizarre construct. It is saying “caused by climate change” (whatever that means) without saying “caused by climate change,” cause they’ll get wrung up for saying it. But they are saying it. They think the way they say it gives them plausible deniability.

    *A title bestowed by Christian Aid

  9. January 4, 2022 3:45 pm

    Why do you all not also target ITN, Channel 4, Sky and all the other media outlets who also report on rising greenhouse gas emissions and a possible runaway greenhouse effect that has made our twin or sister planet uninhabitable? See Wikipedia on venus (hotter than mars although it is further away from the sun than mars).

    Please argue your case to prove I am, thankfully, very wrong in thinking that we are all living unnaturally on a natural planet and infinitely on a finite planet.

    You do believe we can go on, forever, burning up our one-off geological inheritance as if there is no tomorrow, don’t you?

    And we can discount the poorer nations and carry on living it up today and to hell with tomorrow, for tomorrow we die, too? Never mind the grandchildren. All that matters is us, here and now.

    Please go on telling me that you are right, as always and I am wrong, as always.

    • January 4, 2022 6:16 pm

      No serious scientist believes in your Venus theory.

      And I regularly call out the whole media, but the BBC has a statutory duty to be impartial

      • Martin Brumby permalink
        January 4, 2022 8:31 pm

        Yes. And they extort from us the thick end of 200 quid a year, for their imbecilic GangGreen agit prop, even if we don’t watch it.

      • January 4, 2022 9:23 pm

        Paul, I am sure you are a man of integrity from what I have read of yours.

        It is brilliant that you are challenging the conventional wisdom on climate change and keeping the scientists on their toes. However, are you not concerned about the rapid rise of GHG in the atmosphere that must be changing its chemical composition – for good or ill? Or, am I mistaken?

        Could you, perhaps, believe that every journalist wants to do a good and fair report for all sides? There is no conspiracy, I believe. There was some funny business going at the Uni of E Anglia and the hacked emails, I thought. Or, did you approve of the hacking?

        In addition, although human-induced climate change is now accepted only in theory, by all with the recent declarations of a climate emergency, it has not made a scrap of difference in reality. We are all carrying on as normal with NO concession whatsoever to the warnings from the vast majority of climate scientists. They are simply not believed, in actual fact, from the way we each and everyone carry on as if there is nothing to be concerned about!

        Please don’t get het up with reporters highlighting records. It’s all good entertainment for readers and something for them to write about.

        Remember, nothing will change, anyway with economic growth or economic greed always being paramount. Our high impact consumption of finite fossil fuels and the conversion of countryside into concrete, brick and tarmac is continuing apace. Now we see food farms converted into solar farms, High Speed too fast to stop still needing the present intercity service and burying nature, of which we are part!

        I would love you to highlight the urgency of every building being converted into a mini nuclear fusion power station with PV solar on every roof. In this way we can become more independent of Russian gas and French nuclear electricity. In eight years, I have exported about 27,000 kWh of electricity from my 6.24 kWp array for others to use via the grid. I’m doing something practical about the rising cost of gas that will be seen again when shortages arise.

      • Stuart Hamish permalink
        January 5, 2022 8:34 am

        ” The proportion of intense tropical cyclones , average peak tropical cyclone wind speeds and peak wind speeds of the most intense tropical cyclones will increase on the global scale with increasing global warming ‘ the study said ”
        We should expect to see , in the Accumulated Cyclone Energy data a signal of intensifying cyclonic wind velocities after 40 years yet it is absent. Global tropical cyclone ACE values for the year 2021 are comparable to the least active years of the 1980’s and 90’s and, despite inter-annual variability ,
        ” Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased ” Moreover , there is no trend in the frequency of major hurricanes or the ‘ All Hurricanes ‘ series

        https://climatlas.com/tropical/

        As for you Tim Weller , Paul has criticized the alarmist nonsense of Sky [ See ‘ Sky News Ratioed on Twitter ” ] and other media outlets . You could
        have easily checked this with a key word search .You obviously
        have no understanding of Venusian atmospheric science or indeed the Earths nor the merits of logical evidence based arguments …Just Appeal to Emotion ” .Atmospheric CO2 exceeded 3000 ppm during the Ordovician Glaciation so what is the magical ‘tipping point ‘ for a runaway greenhouse effect ” ? Paul is not beholden to tell you he is right …You have made an absolute fool of yourself . Thanks for the Wikipedia recommendation

        ” Please argue your case to prove I am thankfully very wrong in thinking we are all living unnaturally on a natural planet ”

        Did you lecture Extinction Rebellion’s Gail Bradbrook on her ‘ unnatural ‘ diesel powered road trip ? How about the WWF and other Green NGO’s gratefully receiving monetary donations from Shell and other fossil fuel companies ?

    • Cheshire Red permalink
      January 4, 2022 7:30 pm

      Tim Weller;

      Venus isn’t hot from atmospheric CO2, it’s hot due to high atmospheric pressure.
      Mars has effectively identical atmospheric CO2 content to Venus but low pressure, so temps are nowhere near those on Venus.
      The entire CO2 drives warming rubbish is entirely flawed.

      • January 4, 2022 9:49 pm

        I meant mercury (nearest to the sun, yet cooler than venus with its runaway greenhouse effect, so we are told) and NOT mars! Thanks for telling me.

        Something about positive feedback loops giving a runaway greenhouse effect there and here? Some scientists seem to think that is a possibility. What do you think?

        Better just to disappear under the bedclothes, keep our fingers crossed and carry on regardless! And, I’ve been wrong for 40 years, too. Don’t listen to me! Tim W

      • January 5, 2022 12:12 am

        Interesting observation. We also have geological history and physics which are mutually reinforcing to demonstrate what CO2 can and cannot do yet this fundamental is skipped over.

        We have the compelling curves for paleo temperature by Scotese (1999) and paleo atm CO2 Berner (2001) confirmed by the work of W. Jackson Davis in his 2017 paper “The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years”. We also have the electromagnetic signatures of CO2 and Water Vapour which make blindingly clear what CO2 can and cannot do. None of this empirical data based science is even challenged or debated, it is simply ignored. The basic issue of the lack of a cause for their climate cabaret is simply ignored and replaced by arm waving. This knowledge should shock anyone when they discover that the climate city in the sky has nothing holding it up.

        This is the state of what passes for science or is it cyense practiced within the For Profit Climate Hustling Industry which has access to unlimited no questions asked funding and is addicted to that funding. As long as the money flows the corrupt science will continue to be promoted.

        This corruption is now extending way beyond anything considered core to the climate industry and that will lead to the end of the Enlightenment which I would argue not only has already started but is being hastened by those who are gaining traction with asininity like claiming mathematics is racist and indeed all science is racist and truth is bought by the highest bidder.

      • January 5, 2022 11:10 am

        A lot of talk about CO2 on this site but how many other greenhouse gases are there? Can someone list them, please? Methane, water vapour … Then, the permafrost thawing out to release methane. Is that right? In about 1980, TV programme ‘Tomorrow’s World’ said 200 greenhouse gases but have I misremembered? HELP!

    • Crowcatcher permalink
      January 4, 2022 8:28 pm

      Oops!
      I think you’ll find that Venus is a bit closer to the sun than Mars and us here on Earth (or it was when I last read my astronomy book).

      • Cheshire Red permalink
        January 4, 2022 9:40 pm

        Well spotted!
        You guys need to make your minds up.
        CO2?
        Proximity to the sun?
        Cloud cover?
        Atmospheric pressure?
        Any advance on those?

        BTW once you adjust and allow for relative proximity to the sun, incoming solar insolation and altitude points (ie pressure) then Venus and Earth are damn-near identical on temperature gradient.
        That’s one heck of a random coincidence.

        It’s nothing to do with CO2.

    • terryfwall permalink
      January 4, 2022 8:50 pm

      Tim, I also think that, left totally to our own devices, the people on Earth at any present moment will tend to squander finite resources without much thought for future generations. Fortunately we are – slowly – climbing out of that mindset in much of the concerned world but by no means everywhere.

      As you say, we are living unnaturally on this planet (I have no idea what “infinitely on a finite planet” means) and clearly must plan long-term for replacement sources of necessary inputs, or changes to our demands, as we are the first species to consume non-renewable resources at an excessive level.

      Unfortunately, those who might agree with that sentiment have become obsessed with this idea that human activity will cause severely damaging changes to the climate. They focus on this aspect and neglect areas where their actions and protests might actually make a difference to the environment we and our descendants will live in.

      The focus on individual weather events, however news-worthy, damages the credibility of their arguments as the number of weather regions and the proliferation of readings of temperature, precipitation and wind must cause many 100-year records every day of the week. They are therefore no indicator of “climate change” at all, but are used as that by the media, politicians, and scientists, any of whom are concerned or might benefit.

      False data and inaccurate information is also used to try to make persuasive arguments. Anything that will be acceptable to someone trying to prove a case that they have decided to espouse, regardless of any analysis of the evidence, is used. When proved to be untrue this also severely damages the logic of the position adopted.

      In your case, for example, you state that we have a sister planet, Venus, i.e. of similar size to Earth, which is clearly true. It is also true that Venus is intolerably hot and not capable of life as we understand it. It may be that it once was in the “Goldilocks zone” that gave it a more reasonable temperature with some sort of tolerable climate, that changed significantly.

      However, you then use the following to prove your case: “See Wikipedia on venus (hotter than mars although it is further away from the sun than mars).” Most schoolkids would be able to point out the flaw. Mars is half as far again as Earth from the sun but Venus is around 30% closer to the sun than Earth. Of course it is dramatically hotter than our planet, hundreds of millions of years of additional heating has caused that effect. The probability that actions by any species living on this planet could conceivably cause a similar result is absolutely zero.

      I think it is premature to concern ourselves with what might happen to Earth in around a billion years!

      • January 4, 2022 9:36 pm

        Sorry. My mistake. I meant mercury, of course and not mars. Thanks for picking me up on it! But do still read what Wikipedia has to say about the runaway greenhouse effect on venus, please and come back to me. Any danger we are doing the same to earth? Tim Weller

      • January 4, 2022 10:30 pm

        Venus is hotter than Mercury, which is a lot nearer to the Sun. As already pointed out, surface pressure is a key factor if comparing surface temperatures. Earth 1 bar, Venus 92 bar. This pressure is due to its very high atmospheric mass, not CO2 content.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        January 5, 2022 12:13 am

        Well said, Terryfwall . . .

      • Phoenix44 permalink
        January 5, 2022 9:16 am

        Let’s not “plan”. As they say, the Stone Age duende because we ran out of stone, not the Bronze Age end because we ran out of bronze. We discovered new technologies nobody could plan for.

    • January 5, 2022 8:11 am

      I see that Tim Weller appears to have the full Climate Delusion – and then some more. I think that a study of Earth’s climate history shows that the likelihood of getting Venus-like conditions on Earth is zero.

      It is worth remembering that fossil fuels originally derived all their carbon content from CO2 in the air. Also worth remembering is that we are currently in the middle of an ice age and the next glacial period is looking overdue – global cooling on a massive scale should occupy some of our thoughts on the future climate.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      January 5, 2022 9:14 am

      What’s your point? That because some resources are finite we should use them? Why not?

      In the end all we do is make different combinations of elements. We consume nothing as such.

      As for “living unnaturally” that’s just childish mysticism. It has no meaning whatsoever.

  10. January 4, 2022 4:53 pm

    “Note the word “will”! It is certainly true that that the IPCC has forecast all sorts of apocalypse. The problem is that they have found no evidence that this is actually happening.”

    As I understand it, in regards to the science in both the IPCC reports and the US’s NCA, the same can be said for floods, wildfires, extreme drought, tornadoes (though they mostly skip that one. With SLR, they note that the rate today is very similar to the rate prior to 1950. IPCC (not the NCA) does claim that they see an increase in heat waves – but I’d offer that would be only because of the urban heat island effect – which is not GW, nor AGW, though it could be called anthropogenic urban warming.

    In fact, would be great to have a professionally prepared summary of these items as presented in the reports. Brief, concise, w/ backup links. Then we should send a copy to each and every person in Congress – Parliament – etc.

  11. SMS permalink
    January 4, 2022 5:14 pm

    I believe you can see the PDO cycle represented in the normalized losses graph above. We are trending towards another nadir.

  12. January 4, 2022 5:25 pm

    Ugh!

    “It is only because I am bored that I use my time on the vacuous flatulent utterances of pinko McGrath.

    “Not every extreme weather event is caused by or linked to climate change, although scientists have become bolder in exploring the connections”.

    What on earth does that mean? Scientists becoming “bolder” because they are ( supposedly) doing what scientists do? Bravery is Do they have to cross minefields or some other kind of scientific analogue to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? It is a completely meaningless sentence but its intentional understanding by the greater pleberati is clear.

    Next in a similarly meaningless vain is this beauty:

    ” In relation to hurricanes and tropical cyclones, the authors said they had “high confidence” that the evidence of human influence has strengthened”.

    That statement is useless simply embroidering the tale just like as adding detail to a discussion about the Emperors Clothes!

    Note “The Authors”. If anyone understands how the IPCC reports are produced those “authors” are not scientists but political operatives who take input from scientists ( I am interested to know how these people understand the validity of what they are given), and then they “big up” the scientists statement in a more sexy style common to all who majored in climate fear propaganda.

    Just read the part: “The authors said they have “high confidence” that evidence of human influence has strengthened”. No part of that weasel statement is quantitative yet it suggests to the uninformed that they started with “proof” and they just got more “proof”.

    I am suspicious of the “high confidence” this is statistics jargon, do they mean the “high confidence band of their WRONG models says…….

    What on earth does “human influence has strengthened” mean? Does that mean human influence has increased?

    We are told that the IPCC is a scientific organisation which it most definitely is not. It uses ( and abuses) the input it obtains from scientists and then uses that as it sees fit. That they deliberately use obtuse language in it’s self shows they have something to hide.

    To make any such claim it must follow that the foundations of their climate house must be grounded in statistically significant empirical data based science.

    So it must follow that:

    1. They have “proof” (It is incorrect to use that word but it is simple) in terms of statistically significant empirical data supporting a hard link between the 3% contribution to the annual flux of CO2 for the planet contributed by man to global warming. This also must mean that they can identify and separate Natural Warming from Man Made Warming and quantify it.

    2. They have “proof” of a hard link between that identified anthropogenic originating warming and units of climate change or rate of climate change. ( I would really like to hear an explanation of what those are).

    3. “Evidence of human influence has strengthened”. This can ONLY mean that the statistically significance of the empirical data which I refer to above in point 1 MUST have improved.

    However I KNOW they do not have point 1 so how can there be a claim in the absence of point 1 that they have points 2 and 3 which are totally dependent on point 1?

    As it is still within the 12 days of Christmas I will take the liberty of repeating what for me is the most shocking aspect of the whole perverse Climate charade:

    “There exists no statistically significant empirical data of any kind which supports the claim that CO2 liberated by the actions of man and returned to the Carbon Cycle (from whence it was removed) during the past 100 years? has in any measurable way been found to be responsible for any part of all of the current and welcome 350 year old warming, the fourth such warming in recent human history which heralded the end of the Little Ice Age”.

    IT DOES NOT EXIST! Do not take my word for it. Go look yourselves.

    So based on that, what is any of this about but the embellishment of the Emperors Clothes and the BBC offer themselves as willing distributors of the message.

    Without a “proven” cause there cannot be a “proven” effect. Q.E.D

    Again as I mentioned earlier I do not like to use the word “proof” because it is a mathematical and legal term. In science there is only weight of supporting statistically significant empirical data based evidence which can be replaced next week by new more weighty supporting statistically significant empirical data based evidence.

    • Stuart Hamish permalink
      January 5, 2022 10:40 am

      Are ‘ Pardon Me For Breathing ‘ and ‘ Jim Le Maistre ” one and the same ? So many exclamation marks !!!!!! …..So much manic ‘capitalization ‘ [ even improperly as in ‘ Man Made Warming ‘ ] and turgid prose !!

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        January 5, 2022 2:17 pm

        Go back to teaching English, put away your common sense and denigrate ALL who may diverge from your views without an educated scientific challenge. Sounds like a brilliant strategy. No wonder thinking, rational people find the field of Environmentalism Sooo toxic !!!

      • Stuart Hamish permalink
        January 6, 2022 12:13 am

        The excitable insouciant prose and peccadillo’s such as improper capitalization indicate Jimlemaistre and pmfb are one and the same .

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        January 6, 2022 12:58 am

        Here you go Stuart – I learned to read at 19 . . . I had LD as a child . . .
        You are NOT the first man to insult me and I am sure you will NOT be the last
        We can’t all be as smart as you I guess . . . But hey . . . who can ??
        Keep up the good work . . .

      • Stuart Hamish permalink
        January 6, 2022 7:46 am

        Nice try with the moral shaming …. I was in remedial classes at school for one or two semesters pertaining to one subject I also struggled with in primary school so I am not inclined toward insulting others who have experienced learning difficulties . You strike me as an otherwise intelligent person . My derisive criticism relates to your two aliases on this one page and the resemblance in the parlance. What’s the point ? The papers published under the name Jim Le Maistre bear no resemblance to your writing style . I won’t parry with you again .

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        January 6, 2022 5:52 pm

        Mr. Hamish, I have NO aliases !

        Every word you have seen has been written by me.

        I graduated from University as a teacher. All my research began about 20 years ago. Much of what I have found began by reading books published by Environmentalists. However, Co2 or Carbon as the cause of Climate Change quickly became ridiculous when mathematics were applied to raw Data.

        Furthermore, I have studied the ‘Known’ Volcanoes dating back 150,000 years. Volcanoes in 435 and 436 at the end of the The Roman Warming Period initiated that.

        Then I started writing papers. I hope you have found some of the research of interest.

        PS . . . After learning to read, I was accepted as a mature student at University. I completed my degree in 2.5 years with a 3.76 . . .
        OK, I guess, for a kid who was always kept in ‘The Dummy Class’ by teachers who saw no potential . . . I am proud of my research and I would consider writing in a ‘Nom de Plume’ disgraceful.

    • jimlemaistre permalink
      January 6, 2022 7:59 pm

      Pardonmeforbreathing, Honestly I very much appreciated your approach to the IPCC data and the overall debate. I will take the liberty of copying your words for future reference . . . Well said . . . I look forward to your future comments . . .

      Jim Le Maistre

      • Stuart Hamish permalink
        January 7, 2022 12:22 am

        Actually I will respond to you again …. Pardon Me For Breathing and Jim Le Maistre’s febrile rambling prose and signature oddities [ floridity and improper capitalization ] point to one and the same .troll …”Jim Le Maistre’ belatedly and formally replying to ‘PMFB ‘ is not at all persuasive and smacks of over-compensation . I also suspect that despite the superficial indignation and moral blackmail “he ‘ delights in the attention.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        January 7, 2022 12:47 am

        Frankly Sir Hamish . . . enough !
        You, sadly are the Troll . . Stop . . . You are wrong !

      • Stuart Hamish permalink
        January 7, 2022 9:26 am

        Le Maistre : ” just like as adding detail to a discussion about the Emperor’s Clothes ! ”

        ” This must also mean that they can identify and separate Natural Warming from Man Made Warming and quantify it ”

        ” ……of the whole perverse Climate [sic ] charade ”

        Pardonmeforbreathing : ” This is the state of what passes for science or is it cyense [ ?] practiced within the For Profit Climate Hustling Industry ”

        ” We also have the electromagnetic signatures of CO2 and Water Vapour which make blindingly clear what CO2 can and cannot do ”

        ” IT DOES NOT EXIST ! Do not take my word for it . Go look yourselves “

  13. Ian permalink
    January 4, 2022 5:38 pm

    “How the BBC lie, cheat and misinform”

    … on our quid.
    Isn’t it time we brought this to a halt?

    • bobn permalink
      January 4, 2022 6:04 pm

      STOP PAYING THE BBC LICENSE TAX!
      Just stop.
      They will send letters threatening to visit you but in the 2 plus years since Ive stopped no-one has shown up (to my regret because I have a screed of invective ready for any fool who does come by from BBC!).
      Eventually the letters will slow down (some come with nice red writing and all capitals on).
      Do not reply in any way to any of their letters – just bin, or decorate the garden shed with them.
      Their agents have no right to enter your house – deny them entry in the million to one chance they show up.
      You have no obligation to talk to them. Close the door after telling them how you switched off the TV due to incessant BBC lies. You can own a TV and watch pay to view without paying their tax.
      We all can protest by stopping paying the License tax.
      If you do pay their tax then you are complicit in supporting their lies.

  14. jimlemaistre permalink
    January 4, 2022 6:12 pm

    Fear mongering is effective and gets headlines and, as has been pointed out, deniable plausibility is a VERY BIG part of that ! What we ALL need to recognize is that Climate Change IS happening . . . As it Always has . . . in cycles. There have been 18 Warming and Cooling cycles in the last 10,000 years . . . ALL of which are documented in some form.

    The question is . . . Is the Modern Warming period different from say the Roman warming Period or The Middle Ages Warming period ? The answer is a flat out NO ! Brian Fagan’s books on The Little Ice Age and The Middle Ages Warming Period (The Great Warming) clearly describe this in Great Detail. Furthermore, The Roman Warming Period lasted almost 700 years. It began about 350 BC and ended, abruptly in 450 AD. Volcanoes above VEI 6 can be shown to cause Global Cooling. When Volcanoes erupt regularly and sequentially, we get Cooling Periods. When the cooling subsides . . . We return to what I call ‘The Norm of Warm’. THAT is what has been happening since 1750 the coldest point in The Little Ice Age.

    2 Papers to review . . .

    https://www.academia.edu/49421861/CO2_Cradle_of_Life_on_Planet_Earth

    Pages 33 – 37 . . . https://www.academia.edu/45570971/The_Environmentalist_and_The_Neanderthal

    Climate Change IS real . . . as it always has been ! there is an old saying among the Acadian people of Eastern Canada . . . The More things change . . . The More they stay the same.

    • Stuart Hamish permalink
      January 5, 2022 10:22 am

      ” Volcanoes !!…….Volcanoes !!

  15. Coeur De Lion permalink
    January 4, 2022 8:05 pm

    Donna Laframboise catalogues the IPCC dishonesties (2011, 2013), noted by Matt Ridley as ‘devastating’. Steve McIntyre at climateaudit.org has examined the new Hockey Stick graph placed on the cover of the Summary for Policymakers of AR6. This does not appear in AR6 but eliminates the MWP and LIA. Steve shows that its construction is grossly fraudulent. The IPCC should be ignored. How can they claim authority with such publically evident dishonesties?

  16. M E permalink
    January 4, 2022 8:54 pm

    https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/record-warmth-worry-scientist

    Not only the BBC but New Zealand news sites including TV . Remember, if you knew it, that in New Zealand we are having a prolonged holiday between Christmas and New Year because of Bank Holidays . Bank Holidays for Christmas and New Year have been moved to week days so the holidays are longer still. Therefore I contend that journalists are trying to find something to fill the required column space. view the Otago Times so far it is free. Another site filled with nothing much is Newshub.nz. other news sites expect payment.

  17. January 4, 2022 10:09 pm

    The metroliberal ruling class, don’t like the real world
    They prefer the storytelling BS, that PR people feed them.
    Boris & Starmer the same

    Hence this Marie Antoinette line from Keir Starmer in his vision speech for a future Labour government
    “have BOTH” NutZero & low energy bills

    #1 Starmer didn’t mention the words solar or renewables.

    #2 From the beginning he did mention “energy bills”
    02:19 “the cost of living is increasing, energy bills are going up, wages are stagnant”
    He takes it up again at 27:00 question from journo.
    Then again at next question
    31:00 Starmer
    “On the choice between energy bills and Net Zero,
    I don’t think it is a choice
    I think we can and we should have the ambition to *have BOTH*

    (Ha have your cake and eat it !)

    He did push these dreams :
    #3 wind power : generating enough electricity for many many thousands hundreds of thousands of houses * at very low cost * : LIE !
    Turbines built in Britain “none of them” ..evil Tories policy

    #4 34:13 And then the £28 billion a year investment in the green jobs of the future
    that’s a £1,000 COST per household per year !

    #5 Hydrogen
    Not long ago I visited the Humber gas *works* (sic, he means gas storage caverns)
    The gas they stored helped to keep the prices low but the government let it close in 2017
    and you’ve seen what’s happened to gas prices since.
    .. become a hub for the production of hydrogen
    These workers want to make a historic contribution to combating the climate crisis

    #6 Electric vehicles
    “there’s Brando.. which now produces plates used in hydrogen fuel cells
    A technology that could help to power *lorries* (haha) to have new zero emissions

    I posted 3 longer transcriptions over on CliScep Open Mic

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      January 5, 2022 9:21 am

      Starmer makes me angrier than Johnson. We have no gas storage because nobody was willing to invest in a 30-50 year life gas facility whilst geingvtold we must stop using gas as soon as possible. Labour led that charge.

      And if he thinks we could store sufficient gas to make a difference to the world price he’s entirely stupid.

  18. cookers52 permalink
    January 5, 2022 5:57 am

    Politicians decided to make the weather a political issue, from that point all is going to be fake news.

    Throughout human history the weather and our civilisations activities causing “bad” weather has always been who we are.

    The latest obsession with humanity causing climate change is just our particular generations part in the continuing efforts to appease the weather gods.

  19. Phoenix44 permalink
    January 5, 2022 9:01 am

    This is pure disinformation. Quoting a Tweet? And even that simply says “more likely” which is NOT the same as “caused”. I’m not even clear scientifically what it means. An event has causes. Was climate change a cause or not? Don’t know? Then you don’t know.

    As for a report from Christian Aid…why would they be unbiased and expert?

  20. Mark Hodgson permalink
    January 7, 2022 7:10 pm

    Paul, we seem to have been writing about this story at the same time, though you finished while I was still working on mine. We have approached it from slightly differently angles, so I hope you don’t mind if I refer to mine here:

    Repeat After Me

    In mine I do give yours a positive reference…:-)

  21. Michael Monahan permalink
    January 8, 2022 1:50 am

    Time to throw more virgins into the volcano. (if they can be found).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: