Little evidence of changes in extreme weather trends
By Paul Homewood
New IPCC attribution statistics are distorting observational evidence
London, 27 July – A new paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation finds that the IPCC’s recent shift in methodology has led to misleading claims about changes in weather extremes.
The review, from physicist Dr Ralph Alexander, finds that IPCC claims that many of these weather extremes are increasing significantly are largely unsupported by observational evidence.
According to Dr Alexander:
"On almost every kind of extreme weather, with the possible exemption of heatwaves, the evidence for significant changes is scant. But the latest IPCC report has introduced novel ‘attribution’ statistics and now insists that things are getting worse. It’s yet another case of scientists trying to scare the public into compliance."
Dr Alexander’s paper looks at:
– droughts
– floods
– hurricanes
– tornadoes
– wildfires
– hot and cold extremes
– coral bleaching.
He concludes that:
"The mistaken belief that weather extremes are worsening because of climate change is more a perception, fostered by media coverage, than reality. The IPCC’s new statistical method is playing an unworthy part in bringing this sorry state of affairs to pass."
GWPF invited the Royal Society and the Met Office to review this paper, and to submit a response to be published as an appendix to it. No reply was received.
Ralph Alexander: Extreme Weather: The IPCC’s Changing Tune (pdf)
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The solution to the problem of getting the public to understand the extent of the lying about climate and weather has been provided by The Powers That Be.
Once the public comes to realise how much they were lied to about Covid, lockdowns, and vaccines it will (I hope) look at other Great Lies with new eyes.
When people spout the latest climate change propaganda at me, I ask them if the various governments lie to them. Sometimes it starts an interesting discussion.
One would hope so but I fear many folks struggle with what day of the week it is.
Donna Laframboise has described the serial dishonesties of the IPCC over the decades, her second book concentrating on the corrupt chairmanship of the sexually compromised railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri. Now we have AR6 with its Summary for Policymakers decorated with a new Hockey Stick showing fearful recent temperature uptick. With unbelievable effrontery, it is not part of AR6 workings. And Steve McIntyre’s website climateaudit.org shows that it is a disgraceful fraud anyway. Defund that gravy train.
If the evidence is so strong that extreme events are increasing in intensity and frequency, you really shouldn’t have to invent a wholly fradulent new methodology to prove it.
Just use the evidence that showed you they are increasing…
Oh that’s the forecast in your model? I see.
And since the 3 quite warm days at the start of last week, it has been very cool for the last few days.
Droughts, floods and forest fires depend to some extent on local conditions, e.g. water storage and usage, river and forest management, etc. Trying to link such things to a trace gas in the atmosphere is silly to say the least.
I note that while there have been heat related deaths in the UK and Europe the number aren’t newsworthy. 2003 is still the high water mark for climate catastrophists.
The Science agrees: “In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9
“A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming”
The “yet” is a propaganda tell. In poker, one must watch for shifting eyes among other involuntary muscle movements.
My book “Exploding the Myths of Climate Change,” takes the same track. It looks at the laundry list of supposed weather extremes and finds that they are not really so extreme at all.