Harrabin Stays Silent Over His Fake Drought Claims
July 14, 2022
By Paul Homewood
Further to that Harrabin fake news story this morning, I left a couple of comments on his thread.
So far, no reply or correction from him, nor any of his green chums, who were busy declaring the end of civilisation earlier today!
https://twitter.com/rharrabin/status/1547446804710670336?s=21&t=gaqiC0XRHiUGbw93dIjliQ
12 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Hard to know where Ms Cohen finds , in this country at least , journalists who don’t ” get it ” , as with the honourable exceptions of Melanie Phillips and possibly Charles Moore pretty well all of them ” get it ” . Not forgetting every quango , government department , trades union , religious group , future monarch , teacher , charity , media dimbulb , most politicians and ‘ green ‘ energy parasites , 98% of students and the entire population of Islington . Assuming the poor thing wasn’t confused between Harpie-bin and Mr. Holmewood’s contribution , and it was actually his point she was in favour of ?
Harrabin’s habit is to ignore criticism.
It reflects poorly on him that he’s unable to defend his & his employer’s claims.
This downpour was in Usk on 14th July this year.
From a comment here ….
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=205&t=1956585&i=2620
That downpour was very quick to green up your garden/desert there Ted.
He went from “heating” to “warming”. Shouldn’t mix it, heating sounds much hotter than warming, which is why R Betts came up with it in 2018.
Amazing how Harrabin and none of his adherents have offered any come back to the criticism
It’s not true to say that Harra didn’t respond to criticism
BishopHill instead of picking on the clear fake news line rushed in and put up an incomplete rainfall chart
Harra replied https://twitter.com/RHarrabin/status/1547486774242545665
Precipitation is notoriously hard to predict.
But Farmers appear disinclined to gamble that climate change will improve matters.
That was at 8:42am Thursday
He then 9:27am he added
I think the misleading is coming from those people who have been telling us for decades that Climate Change was not a problem.
I’m ending this conversation here because I’ve got work to do
Seems he’s a Global Warming PR guy
not a truth seeking journalist.
He’s using the old warmist trick of pretending that ‘climate change’ and ‘human-caused climate change’ are the same argument, which is clearly false.
Then they assert that disputing the CO2 hypothesis amounts to claiming there is no warming – another trick argument.
Oldbrew – those are both very good points and ones that often frustrate me when listening to media reports. We should call it out more often, similarly with “carbon” as opposed to CO2.
Having looked at lots of data my view is
(a) there are has been consistent warming since 1850, with a quasi-periodic overprint with a period of about 60 – 70 years
(b) warming since about 1850 is clearly evidenced in sea level and glacial retreat data
(c) surface temperature data does not show warming from 1850, rather it shows it from 1910. This is a rather glaring inconsistency and, in my view, the temperature data prior to about 1910 may well be useless. Note models match the temperatures but it would be impossible for them to match sea level or glacier retreat data sets pre-1910
(d) According to models and forcings used to drive them, the warming in the latter half of the C20th (post-1950s) to date should be significantly greater than the warming pulse in the early part of the C20th. In the temperature record the two periods have very similar warming rates over 30 years, this is inconsistent with models. If models cannot predict 80 years in the past, why would we believe predictions 80 years into the future?
(e) Happer and Wiljoen have demonstrated the clear sky physics response of CO2 doubling from 400 to 800 ppm is only about 3 W/m^2 or about 0.85 degC (no feedbacks). This would be consistent with all my observations above and also with many empirical estimates of ECS.
So based on the above I can agree with the statement there is climate change (I am a geoscientist – of course I know climate changes, FFS!) and I can agree there has been warming since 1850. But I would then point out the temperature data and models only show warming from 1910, which contradicts sea-level and glacier data and secondly I would note that warming early and late C20th are not wildly different as models predict, taking this along with Happer’s CO2 physics and empirical ECS it seems likely there is only a small CO2 impact. So climate change yes, AGW not much, possibly trivial and likely benign.
Struck dumb?
– did somebody warn him about a bumper garlic harvest so he ran away?
Hmm. Someone who denies facts which are staring him in the face. Wonder if there’s a useful word for such a person?