• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle': Is Climate Change A Myth?

Yes it mentions this in the article and points out that he didn't know what he was talking about, and yet the BBC repeated it without checking the facts.
So did plenty of other news sites - even your favourite Breitbart.
 
I'm not sure where you're getting that from? Is it just another one of those 'stating something as fact' things, with no research to back it up?
If that is the case you might benefit from reading the David Sedgwick book "Is That True Or Did You Hear It On The BBC?: Disinformation and the BBC" https://www.amazon.co.uk/That-True-Did-You-Hear/dp/1999359178

Records actually show that "there have been four massive Pakistan floods – 1950, 1992, 1993 and 2010 – which killed more people than perished this year."
What I'm getting at is the floods this time have been characterised as "the worst in recent memory", which is just how they were characterised when they happened in 2010 as well. That time they killed even more people.
More or less the same thing happened in 1992 as well.

The pattern seems to be that what used to be once in a generation, or once in a century events are now happending at increaingly frequent intervals.

So, whether it is wildfires, droughts, floods or hurricanes, the frequency and intensity of these extreme weather events seem to be increasing.

This is exactly what most climate change warnings have been about: an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events as the overall energy levels of a warming climate increase.
 
What I'm getting at is the floods this time have been characterised as "the worst in recent memory", which is just how they were characterised when they happened in 2010 as well. That time they killed even more people.
More or less the same thing happened in 1992 as well.

The pattern seems to be that what used to be once in a generation, or once in a century events are now happending at increaingly frequent intervals.

So, whether it is wildfires, droughts, floods or hurricanes, the frequency and intensity of these extreme weather events seem to be increasing.

This is exactly what most climate change warnings have been about: an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events as the overall energy levels of a warming climate increase.
Even if this were 100% the case, it does not justify in the UK (or anywhere for that matter), at all, leaving people without heating, in poverty or without food, especially when viable nuclear power plants could (have) been used to ensure that didn't happen. It's utterly indefensible and beneath contempt as a strategy, especially as it was neither necessary nor impossible.

In 2010 the coalition government cancelled plans to help create the capacity to build nuclear power plants here in the UK - we could have dealt with this mess right there. But no, 'build more wind turbines'.

It's the thinking of deranged lunatics and ideologists, climate change or not. Especially as UK contribution to 'climate change' is, if the proxy c02 is correct, 1.1% of the world wide contribution. Some utter pricks (who clearly don't understand the difference between a kw and a Mw or understand how a baseload grid system works) have consigned people to poverty and death from cold for what exactly?

:frust::incan:
 
What I'm getting at is the floods this time have been characterised as "the worst in recent memory", which is just how they were characterised when they happened in 2010 as well. That time they killed even more people.
More or less the same thing happened in 1992 as well.

The pattern seems to be that what used to be once in a generation, or once in a century events are now happending at increaingly frequent intervals.

So, whether it is wildfires, droughts, floods or hurricanes, the frequency and intensity of these extreme weather events seem to be increasing.

This is exactly what most climate change warnings have been about: an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events as the overall energy levels of a warming climate increase.

Floods in Pakistan killed 2,910 in 1950, when the population was 37.7 million. This flood has killed 1,325 from a population of 236 million. It could be argued that this flood is far less serious than the 1950 disaster.

CBS - and other mainstream news outlets - tells us that a third of the country is underwater. The correct figure is 8%.

We only have accurate weather records from this area for a few decades. We have no way of knowing what previous flooding has occurred, and what any death toll might have been.

This is fairly representative of the Chicken Little school of climate alarmism.

maximus otter
 
Records actually show that "there have been four massive Pakistan floods – 1950, 1992, 1993 and 2010 – which killed more people than perished this year."
I have to say that this pattern does seem reasonably consistent with a switch between 100-year-intervals and 10-year-intervals, although the data is pretty sparse.
 
I am reminded that whenever I hear the phrase "Worst ever recorded" I am prompted to see just exactly how far back records have been being kept for.
"Worst ever recorded" carries very little weight if the records being referred to only go back a few decades.
 
There is also the question of number of fatalities versus fraction of people affected. If the population is now much greater, then a disaster may affect a smaller fraction of that population while affecting more in terms of absolute numbers.
 
Daily Sceptic repeatedly having excellent articles lately.

Coral Reefs Unharmed by Anthropogenic Global Warming, Major New Study Shows
The recent news that coral had grown back in record amounts in just two years on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) punctured the 25-year-long scare story that ‘global warming’ was rapidly killing it off. Now the scare seems dead and buried, after a 10-year survey of a remote reef 1,200 kms south of Hawaii has established beyond any reasonable doubt that coral bleaching is caused by natural sudden changes in local water temperature. The decade-long survey found coral quickly recovers when normal conditions return.

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/08...pogenic-global-warming-major-new-study-shows/
 
1663494999493.png


Also here;
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...veals-centuries-old-beeswax-candle-180977944/
 
Items that are dropped onto a glacier will eventually work their way downwards, so this proves nothing.
However, if they found an entire Viking settlement underneath where a glacier had once stood, then that might be significant.
 
if they found an entire Viking settlement underneath where a glacier had once stood
I read through several bits, clicking on links there, and apparently it is indeed becoming more common to find whole settlements, and not always specifically 'viking' either.

This graphic shows a well used path and indicates where they discovered a 'lost settlement'.
1663500992117.png
 
Massive Increase in Global Greening as Extra Carbon Dioxide Boosts Global Crop Yields.
"(...) scientists have shown that world food production has soared in recent decades as carbon dioxide has taken small steps to reclaim atmospheric levels common through geological time until the relatively recent past.
The current level of atmospheric CO2 at 419 parts per million (ppm) is near an all-time low. If it goes much lower, say to around 180 ppm, plant and human life will start to die off."
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/23...tra-carbon-dioxide-boosts-global-crop-yields/
 
An excellent piece in Daily Sceptic today about the bunkum coming from the BBC (again)
"Rising Nonsense About Sea Levels From the BBC
(...) apparent changes in sea levels are also partly due to factors like Tectonic Plate Movement, Glacial Isostatic Adjustment, Post-Glacial Rebound and subsidence due to water abstraction around major cities. Tectonic Plate Movement is, of course, the continual movement of the Earth’s tectonic plates, which give us earthquakes and tsunamis. Glacial Isostatic Adjustment has been going on for at least two million years. Massive glaciers grow and then melt, alternately depressing the Earth’s crust and then releasing it again. As we are now in an interglacial, which has led to melting ice, Scandinavia is slowly rising. Hence, the sea level at Stockholm appears to be falling."
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/23/rising-nonsense-about-sea-levels-from-the-bbc/
 
An excellent piece in Daily Sceptic today about the bunkum coming from the BBC (again)
"Rising Nonsense About Sea Levels From the BBC
(...) apparent changes in sea levels are also partly due to factors like Tectonic Plate Movement, Glacial Isostatic Adjustment, Post-Glacial Rebound and subsidence due to water abstraction around major cities. Tectonic Plate Movement is, of course, the continual movement of the Earth’s tectonic plates, which give us earthquakes and tsunamis. Glacial Isostatic Adjustment has been going on for at least two million years. Massive glaciers grow and then melt, alternately depressing the Earth’s crust and then releasing it again. As we are now in an interglacial, which has led to melting ice, Scandinavia is slowly rising. Hence, the sea level at Stockholm appears to be falling."
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/23/rising-nonsense-about-sea-levels-from-the-bbc/
As far back as 2005, scientists some scientists were pointing at the (lack of) rising sea levels in e.g. the Maldives and were shouted down for it.
 
As far back as 2005, scientists some scientists were pointing at the (lack of) rising sea levels in e.g. the Maldives and were shouted down for it.
The Maldives has always been a low-lying set of islands. They are still there, so... what happened?
Every now and then, the people who own the islands use the global warming excuse to cadge some financial help from the global community. They need it to pay for the ongoing work to build/rebuild their coastal defences. They have a long-term project to import large rocks that are piled up along some beaches to stop the sea flooding the land. That costs money. It may partly explain why they re-joined the British Commonwealth in 2020. They can get money from the Commonwealth, the UN, the IMF, etc. So, of course they will play the global warming card whenever they need to.
 
IIRC it was the Maldives government that held a cabinet meeting while wearing scuba gear, underwater, to highlight their 'struggle' with rising sea levels.

Ahah...found it...2009.

https://sos.noaa.gov/education/phenomenon-based-learning/underwater-cabinet-meeting/

and
"Earlier this year, he vowed to make the Maldives carbon neutral within a decade by switching to renewable energy and offsetting carbon emissions caused by tourists flying to the Maldives."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-maldives-environment-idUSTRE59G0P120091017

That was taken from the 2009 report. I wonder how they're doing with that?
 
This excellent article in 'Science' (and they have a lot of excellent stuff over there) gives details of ice cores retrieved from central Greenland which prove that the ground beneath the ice used to be exposed to the air. And for an extremely long period.
A very interesting read.

Using data from a 3053-meter-long core of ice and bedrock collected from the center of the island in 1993, Schaefer's team has found valuable clues to what the period held. In particular, the 1.55 meters of bedrock at the core's base (...) Earth's surface is constantly bombarded by cosmic rays, high energy particles streaming into Earth from space. They collide with atoms in Earth's atmosphere as well as in the uppermost centimeters of its rocks, producing new particles. Some of those particles have a particularly useful set of properties: They don't naturally occur in the rocks, and they are radioactive. Thus, they can act as a sort of clock, marking time since the rocks were last ice free and exposed to the atmosphere.

https://www.science.org/content/article/greenland-was-once-ice-free
 
This excellent article in 'Science' (and they have a lot of excellent stuff over there) gives details of ice cores retrieved from central Greenland which prove that the ground beneath the ice used to be exposed to the air. And for an extremely long period.
A very interesting read.

Using data from a 3053-meter-long core of ice and bedrock collected from the center of the island in 1993, Schaefer's team has found valuable clues to what the period held. In particular, the 1.55 meters of bedrock at the core's base (...) Earth's surface is constantly bombarded by cosmic rays, high energy particles streaming into Earth from space. They collide with atoms in Earth's atmosphere as well as in the uppermost centimeters of its rocks, producing new particles. Some of those particles have a particularly useful set of properties: They don't naturally occur in the rocks, and they are radioactive. Thus, they can act as a sort of clock, marking time since the rocks were last ice free and exposed to the atmosphere.

https://www.science.org/content/article/greenland-was-once-ice-free
Interesting in itself but I’m not sure what Greenland being ice free some time in the last 1.25 million years tells us about the situation now.

No-one is suggesting the climate hasn’t changed substantially over time.
 
It just confirms it, that the climate has, in the past, altered quite significantly without input from mankind.
Previously it had pretty much been supposition (or 'informed guesswork' if you like) based on looking at other geological records, and also bearing in mind that natural processes such as tectonic shift, volcanism, and bombardment played their part too.
 
It just confirms it, that the climate has, in the past, altered quite significantly without input from mankind.
Previously it had pretty much been supposition (or 'informed guesswork' if you like) based on looking at other geological records, and also bearing in mind that natural processes such as tectonic shift, volcanism, and bombardment played their part too.
Yes, no-one disputes this. To repeat, I’m not sure what this tells us about the situation now.
 
Excellent article today in Daily Sceptic
As the Climate Refuses to Break Down on Cue, the Pseudoscience of ‘Attribution Studies’ Rises Up to Plug the Holes
The last few years have seen the climate alarmist industry go all in on ‘attributing’ bad weather to humans causing the climate to change. As global warming goes off the boil and the climate resolutely fails to break down on cue, an entire industry of pseudoscience has sprung up to scour the world and catastrophise every unusual natural weather event or disaster.
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/10/14...tribution-studies-rises-up-to-plug-the-holes/
 
This article in TCW exposes how the BBC (and to some degree the ONS) mis-uses the data to paint a different picture than that which actually happened.

The climate scaremongers: Another example of BBC gross misrepresentation
The BBC and ONS are quick to blame these deaths on the weather, but maybe they should be looking for the real reasons.
Article in TCW
 
This is interesting stuff. Well worth reading the whole article. (link underneath)

Net Zero Bombshell: The World Does Not Have Enough Lithium and Cobalt to Replace All Batteries Every 10 Years – Finnish Government Report
Current expectations are that global industrial businesses will replace a complex industrial energy ecosystem that took more than a century to build. It was built with the support of the highest calorifically dense source of energy the world has ever known (oil), in cheap abundant quantities, with easily available credit and seemingly unlimited mineral resources.
The replacement, he notes, needs to be done when there is comparatively very expensive energy, a fragile finance system saturated in debt and not enough minerals. Most challenging of all, it has to be done within a few decades. Based on his copious calculations, the author is of the opinion that it will not go fully “as planned”.

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/10/22...ies-every-10-years-finnish-government-report/
 
It just confirms it, that the climate has, in the past, altered quite significantly without input from mankind.
Previously it had pretty much been supposition (or 'informed guesswork' if you like) based on looking at other geological records, and also bearing in mind that natural processes such as tectonic shift, volcanism, and bombardment played their part too.

So because there have been climatic changes in the past without human intervention, it is impossible for human intervention to produce climatic changes. Is that what you're saying?
 
So because there have been climatic changes in the past without human intervention, it is impossible for human intervention to produce climatic changes. Is that what you're saying?
No not impossible, just unlikely, and minimal.
And it isn't 'me' saying it, it's scientists.
 
This detailed study is excellent.

Dozens of Climate Models Wildly Exaggerate Extent of Global Warming
Further evidence has emerged that climate models are useless for the purpose of forecasting future temperature rises. A recent survey using American summer temperatures (June, July, August) over the last 50 years, found that 36 major climate models showed nearly twice the warming rate observed by the surface temperature measurements recorded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). At the high end, a number of models forecast warming nearly three times greater than observed data show.
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/10/24...s-wildly-exaggerate-extent-of-global-warming/
 
Says its going to 18 Degrees on Wednesday then more rain...I hate that as it Halloween week and I like my Autumn cool, crisp and clear plus I wanted the rain the Summer as I was knackered over the summer.
I bet we get a Mild Christmas as well.
 
Says its going to 18 Degrees on Wednesday then more rain...I hate that as it Halloween week and I like my Autumn cool, crisp and clear plus I wanted the rain the Summer as I was knackered over the summer.
I bet we get a Mild Christmas as well.

Yeah, weather in Dublin for coming week forecast is 15 - 16C with lowest 10C at night, rainy, unsettled. Humidity 88% now, lowest over week 62%, highest 89%. On the beach on Xmas day I bet!
 
Massive Increase in Greenland Surface Ice Sheet Suggests Possible Overall Gain in 2022
Whisper it quietly, but the Greenland ice sheet may have made a net gain in size in the year to August 2022. A massive boost of 471 billion tonnes of ice was created on the surface during the last recorded year, the 10th highest increase in 42 years, and much higher than the 1981-2010 annual average of 368 billion tonnes. This year’s surface gain, known as surface mass balance (SMB), continues the spectacular recovery seen on the ice sheet from 2012, when a low of 38 billion tonnes was reported. This year’s figure, while high, was beaten in 2017 and 2018 when over 500 billion tonnes were created on the surface.
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/10/27...sheet-suggests-possible-overall-gain-in-2022/
 
Massive Increase in Greenland Surface Ice Sheet Suggests Possible Overall Gain in 2022
Whisper it quietly, but the Greenland ice sheet may have made a net gain in size in the year to August 2022. A massive boost of 471 billion tonnes of ice was created on the surface during the last recorded year, the 10th highest increase in 42 years, and much higher than the 1981-2010 annual average of 368 billion tonnes. This year’s surface gain, known as surface mass balance (SMB), continues the spectacular recovery seen on the ice sheet from 2012, when a low of 38 billion tonnes was reported. This year’s figure, while high, was beaten in 2017 and 2018 when over 500 billion tonnes were created on the surface.
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/10/27...sheet-suggests-possible-overall-gain-in-2022/
I sense your desperation to find some legitimate ‘Greenland Not Melting’ news but you haven’t managed to find it yet.

The daily sceptic is a blog, not a scientific site. In one of your previous GNM posts you linked to Polar Portal, the Danish Arctic research institution which actually monitors the area. It starts off with this:

PLEASE MAKE SURE TO READ THIS TEXT!

The map illustrates how the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheetgains and loses mass on a daily basis. This difference between snowfall and runoff is known as the SURFACE mass balance It is always positive over the course of a year as not all fallen snow runs off the ice sheet again.

The surface mass balance is NOT identical to the TOTAL mass balance (i.e. overall gain or loss of the ice cap), which also includes the mass that is lost when glaciers calve off icebergs, the melting of glacier tongues as they come into contact with warm seawater and frictional and other effects at the bottom of the ice sheet.
As I previously pointed out, the site has a graph of mass loss from 2000 - 2020 which shows a loss of 5000 gigatons over this period. Here it is:

1666962093011.png

You seem to be prepared to ignore details like this from people who actually study the area, in favour of cherry picked information from a blog.
 
Back
Top